Open thread for licensing discussion.
Ok Steve, I am excited to see what happens.
I hope Adobe/MM come out with official info about the Dynamo license.Cross fingers…–dott. daniele galiffamultimedia designer and developerMacromedia FlashMX Developer Certifieddaniele@mentegrafica.it
Hi Steve,why are adobe so against a personal edition 10 connection version of FMS2 as per the old 1.5.My company was projected to sell 100 of these at $450 each and now we will sell ZERO at $4500How does this make economic sense.Looking forward to your reply.Dean
Dean, I question the sensibility also. My guess is that Adobe does NOT want developers to create small products that use FMS, rather they want only BIG businesses to have the competitive advantages that FMS offers. This would insure big money and little competition. They don’t want lots of little innovators creating video chat, conferencing tools, voip applications, intranet media servers, etc. Rather they’d like to BE the company selling those things as services over and over again, or be charging other big companies oogles of money on a larger scale.
@aardvark -I don’t think that’s true. I’ve said before that in the absence of communication, people tend to think the worst. We (MM/Adobe) have not done a great job of explaining our product decisions, so I understand the suspicion.I don’t really think that innovators creating cool applications is in any way a threat to Adobe’s business. In fact, and I’m sure you’d agree, it helps our business by showing people what you can do with our technology.Adobe can make money selling tools(and end-to-end solutions) to large business, gov’t, EDU, etc and still foster innovation by small developers.Large clients aren’t going to go with small, unproven software vendors. Adobe can’t sell full service solutions to very small business (i.e. we can’t send out a team of engineers and consultants to every client that purchases FMS – only the ones that are large revenue opportunities).there is plenty of room for both sides of this equation to do well and grow businesses.The FMS team is a very small, focused group – basically a start-up inside a large corporation. We can only work on a few projects at a time, and the ones we choose (or that are chosen for us by larger Adobe relationships) are usually based on maximum ROI. So, the development that you see publicly is tends to trend towards the needs of large business – the features/needs of small business and developers tend to follow soon after.I’m not saying it’s the best way, or that this response will justify anything, but I just wanted to emphasize that we do NOT want to shut out small developers.
“I’m not saying it’s the best way, or that this response will justify anything, but I just wanted to emphasize that we do NOT want to shut out small developers.”–But that is what happens. I was lucky and bought 5 FCS 1.5 licenses on the day FCS2 was announced. This will keep me in licenses until August. After that we will have to switch to XML socket server. We simply cannot buy a license at $5890 (european price). We love FCS, but we cannot use it at that price.
Hi Steve,First of all, thanks for supporting this FMS blog. It’s a great idea, and I hope to see alot of great perspectives from FMS developers.I’m currently leading a team developing a ‘virtual classroom’ type application using FMS/FCS at a major internet company. FMS is a great product, and we are really starting to get our arms around all the capabilities it provides.It was also very exciting to talk to the FMS engineers at Anahiem.I note your reply to @aardvark with interest.One of the requirements for our current project involving FMS is the ability for a ‘Presenter’ type user to capture their laptop or desktop screens, and stream it to FMS. (aka Remote Desktop Sharing)This requires that some driver be installed on a Presenter’s machine anda custom ‘broadcast’ flash app developed to read from that driver, and streamed to FMS.We have already done this, but we’ve had issues with the performance of the screen capture drivers we’ve tested.I note with interest that the Breeze product (built on FMS) has this capability, but it is not available to FMS developers.I was wondering if you could give me your (or Adobe’s) perspective on why this is the case.I’m not thinking the worst of Adobe/MM here, but one perspective might be that Adobe is trying to protect the Breeze product revenue streams by excluding functionality at the expense of FMS developers, who are trying to develop the innovative applications you mention.Our team has evaluated Breeze, and it’s a fine product, but it simply is not suited to our needs.We are certainly not trying to build a product to compete with Breeze.I’m thinking this could be a cause of serious concern to FMS developers.Thank you for your time,Burt
but one perspective might be that Adobe is trying to protect the Breeze product revenue streams by excluding functionality at the expense of FMS developers, who are trying to develop the innovative applications you mention.
I honestly don’t know enough about the Breeze business model to know if/how screen sharing in FMS would hurt it. However, there are technical reasons why this won’t work in FMS – to do screen sharing, Breeze uses a special add-in to the Flash player. This add-in was not designed to be used by applications other than Breeze. From what the player and FMS engineers have told me, the cost of making it bulletproof for general use is apparently very high. I don’t really know of any ulterior motives – the reason screen sharing is not in FMS now is purely technical.-steve.
My co-worker and I have another idea about the pricing and licensing. We formed the idea a while ago when we saw some of our development tools’ prices increasing at rates of 25% or more per year. We figured that in some cases companies had evaluated their markets and their expenses related to the number of sales and realized that lots of sales meant lots of technical support. And, if these companies had already snared a certain number of customers with previous versions, then a certain percentage of those would have no choice but to continue buying the future versions. So, lets throw some numbers out there for an example, Dean:oldVersionPrice=$450customerCnt=100revenue=$45000supportCalls=50newVersionPrice=$4500customerCnt=10revenue=$45000supportCalls=5If your in business to make money, AND you are pretty darn certain that you’ll have a certain percentage of customers return or new customers buy, it makes perfect sense to reduce the number of support issues to reduce the support expense.Just an idea, and to me seems more believable than the idea that there is a technical/product development/feature/licensing issue that bars release a version of FMS that is affordable for projects with less users and requirements than… say CNN, CNET or some other big news/media outlet.
Hi Steve,I’d like to express my appreciation for MM/Adobe’s response to the community’s concerns with the FMS license model. Quite honestly, I’ve seldom seen a software vendor respond with a real solution to a problem of this nature in such short time. Hats off to the FMS team.I’d also like to add that the new license profiles are a very welcome addition, particularly the 1000/40 profile which actually creates value in upgrading for some of my clients currently running 1.5-Jay
I would like to put in a request that the Personal Edition make a comeback as well. I have a number of schools that were interested in purchasing one of our products that used FCS. They cannot afford the product since the release of FMS with no Personal Edition.It seems like this would be a win-win proposition for Adobe so I hope they consider it. I have already had several clients who initially purchased the Personal Edition and then upgraded and even stacked to the Enterprise Edition.
It there already confessed what the prices are of the dynamo licenies?
Copyright © 2013 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.