Re: RISCOS Ltd Press Release 06/10/05

In message <64c2cbb64d.davehigton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dave Higton <davehigton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In message <di5ksp$dlk$1$8300dec7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> dominic beesley <"dom-news"@brahms.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What gets me is that for the past two weeks we've been criticising ROL for
> > their piss-poor communication strategy and lack of return for Select
> > customers.
> >
> > They've responded by:
> >
> > Changing their communication strategy to not even telling people the
> > feckin price! And tellings us to ask nicely for a discount! I really am
> > gobstruck this really does take the biscuit, arogant tossers!
> >
> > Kicking Select subscribers in the teeth by releasing the only thing
> > they've had for the past couple of years for a knock down price!
> >
> > Great, really great. I am at a loss. I really do give up!
>
> You astonish me.
I can see both sides here. The problem with the subscription business
model is that the subscriber feels that they have paid for the product
to be produced and that in some way it is partly theirs.

Thus buying Adjust *can* seem like buying the product for a second time
to a subscriber. Similarly having paid for Select to be developed for
the RiscPC class machines it *can* seem that an Iyonix user and
subscriber will have to pay a second time for Select features on an
Iyonix.

Nonsense of course as the company retains the IP on the product and
anyone thinking otherwise is wrong certainly from the legal standpoint.
>
> 1) Adjust has been out for quite a long time now. Most people who
> were going to buy it, have already done so. The price is a significant
> barrier.
I can't speak for others but to be honest ROL *is* the barrier for me.

> But, as with all technology products, the price is initially
> high, then it's usual to reduce it later on to get the remaining people
> to take it up.
This is indeed true, take a look at the budget Iyonix range.
>
> 2) We need to move on, and it would simplify the task of software
> writers if they could drop support for earlier OS versions.
Hmmm or drop the little used 'maverick' version of the OS that adds all
sorts of extensions not supported by 'newer' versions of the OS (you
could of course read this either way Adjust vs RISC OS 5 and vice versa
;o).

I understand the point that 'we need to move on'. I'd prefer to move on
in a structured manner with a company that appears to have a proven
business strategy and the resources both in terms of manpower and
resources to improve the OS.

> Both those assertions point in the same direction: reduce the price
> and widen the take-up.
Except that without the API's being present on an Iyonix then you are
not going to widen the take-up.

Don't forget I have a perfectly stable version of RISC OS on my Iyonix
with excellent customer support. You can reduce the price of Adjust to
ukp 0. But if support for Adjust on the Iyonix is visibly less than that
for RO5 then I'm not going to use it. I don't want to give up good
customer support on my OS. Sorry!

> 3) And anything that encourages politeness is something I would support.
> I'm appalled at the vehemence of the criticism that RO have had to
> suffer over the years, and especially recently.
See above. You have to be very good at managing customer perceptions or
big enough not to have to worry too much about them. A subscription
scheme in a small market brings you very close to your customers.

Perhaps a Firefox or Gimp print approach would have been better where
the goal is defined and payment due when the goal is reached.

However I still feel that the biggest problems lie with the applications
gaps. After nearly three years since the most powerful RISC OS computer
yet built first came to market I still have to run a second computer
running a different OS to do the all things I want.

So why bother with running a RISC OS machine (rhetorical question that
one)
Regards
Stan





--
.

Relevant Pages