Central Licensing Updates at Macromedia.com

We have posted some changes related to Central and licensing at Macromedia.com. We have made some tweaks to the EULA to make it clearer what a commercial application is, and have updated the FAQ with about 20 new questions on licensing and other items.

Finally, you can now buy Central capacity packs in packs of 20 or 100. This significantly lowers the entry point for deploying Central applications internally.

Here are the links:

Updated FAQ
Updated Licensing Description Page

Thanks for everyone’s feedback and input.

56 Responses to Central Licensing Updates at Macromedia.com

  1. Macromedia Central License Programs updated

    Read Mike Chambers announcement here. I just want to say 2 things: 1. Although the discussion on Macromedia Central License Programs was made in different places, I would like to thank David Bisset (CentralMX.com) for his work. He called the…

  2. g.wygonik says:

    hey mike.thank _you_ for taking the time, listening to all our rants, and getting this cleared up. the new FAQ and licensing page are MUCH more descriptive and clear and really help developers know up-front how to approach working with Central – especially in a corporate environment. thanks again!cheersg.

  3. Mike,Thanks for your hard work and making the new documentation very clear on many aspects that were previously “cloudy”I have one question:Why is MM waiting to “maybe” issue special licensing for Government, non-profit or Educational institutions?Are you actually waiting to see if these types of organisations buy capacity packs?I don’t think they will, and by the time MM decides to do something about it, the damage will already be done.Nothing has really changed with regard to the pricing except lowering the initial entry.With this licensing, I don’t see Central being the next big thing. IMO MM have killed Central before it has even had time to mature.A real shame …

  4. Gilles for Eira Inc. says:

    On the try/buy side of application licensing, we are deeply concerned that the “Yahoo Payments Merchant Agreement” specifies the following (excerpt from Section 4 – Eligible Users):”…(a) General Requirements. You represent and warrant that (i) you are organized and existing in, and have a postal mailing address in the United States and a valid and active e-mail address capable of receiving Communications;…”As a duly incorporated Canadian company, we have just finished a Central application but are now confronted with that stumbling block! Does that mean that Central developers living in Germany, Italy or Japan are also excluded from this U.S.-centric licensing agreement?What does MM intend [not] to do about such circumstances?This is a real show-stopper…Even if we ever decided to deploy our application as a non-commercial, we would be limited to 10,000 users (if we interpret correctly the revised “Macromedia Central License Programs”…).Gilles, for Eira Inc.

  5. m says:

    Mike – thanks for putting forth the effort to get this changed.However, there’s still this huge show-stopper:”Capacity Licenses may be purchased in increments of 20 or 100-user Capacity-Packs. A 20-user Capacity-Pack sells for $400. A 100-user Capacity-Pack sells for $2000.”I have to ask my boss to pay $20 per person for an application that he paid me to write with software (DevNet) that the company paid for?

  6. Mike,Reading all of this, I honestly get the feeling that many others do above. I have really supported Central, but now I feel a bit worried.I’ll leave the liscene talk and number crunching to others, because my opinion of all this comes down to just bang for the buck.I do not believe Central provides enough functionality yet as an enviornment to justify these liscences.I can’t help but remember that we are trying to replace web applications where they would be deployed for free. HTML and SWF interfaces do not cost money, and SWF applications on the web still work really really well.Now we are supposed to introduce a new enviornment and bring Macromedia into potentially every major web application we deploy. We are supposed pay 20% of each sale to Macromedia, or now use these capacity packs.Mike I am being honest here, I do not think Central is worth the time and hassle of all of this. Central really is just built on the Flash Player, so 90% of the functionality I need is already deployable for free.Now I won’t deny there is great stuff in Central, but it is not tempting enough yet. I mean Central should honestly have 2 times the feature list to justify this.Sorry for the negative attitude man, but I agree with the person above. You guys might kill interest in this product before it takes off.

  7. Can the minimum price that a Try / Buy application be waived or modified for subscription based applications? ie for apps using the internal payment api.

  8. mike chambers says:

    >Why is MM waiting to “maybe” issue special licensing for Government, non-profit or Educational institutions?Because it requires a new product id type, which requires an engineering change to Central.So the waiting part is more about waiting for an update to Central, rather than figuring out if we want to do it.Hope that helps…mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  9. Peter says:

    What a disapointment. I’ve been really excited about Central and it’s huge potential and the MM lawyers/accountants (I can’t imagine the programmers have suggested this strategy) have just killed it off before it even has a chance.Don’t they understand there are existing development tools that will build the same functionality without the endless annual license costs. Other technologies can deliver similar apps over the web. The apps won’t be quite as good but the ongoing cost of Central does not justify the difference.How does the Amazon app fit in with the license? Since Amazon didn’t create it and it is available free then there are no costs to Amazon. If it became popular it would be a very effective sales tool for Amazon. However if Amazon had created it, even Amazon probably couldn’t justify deploying it – paying $20pa per potential customer.Central is ideal for creating buying-process enhancing apps like the Amazon one but there is no license option that makes it practical to deploy it.Also, since the minimum try/buy is $5 can a company spend $5 for each customer/employee and buy an app for them – much more affordable than $20pa.

  10. mike chambers says:

    >I have to ask my boss to pay $20 per person for an application that he paid me to write with software (DevNet) that the company paid for?First, just to be clear, the license is per user, not per app. More info at:http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/productinfo/faq/#item-16Second, yes, if you want to deploy an application to Central in a commercial environment, you must purchase a license. This is covered in our FAQ:http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/productinfo/faq/#item-11http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/productinfo/faq/#item-18Hope that helps answer your question…mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  11. Jeremy says:

    Hmmm…I _was_ really excited about what central could be. But this is such a huge dissapointment. I mean, I have so much more development power with Java (Web Start) or .NET, much better IDE’s, and when it comes to liscensing I actually have some options. I am sure that Microsoft wants to have a similar liscensing scheme for .NET applications, but the reality is that it will go no where with one. Why does Macromedia think that they can be a newcomer into this segment and capture that kind of cash? On top of that, there is really no way to sell this to any of my clients because it is so intirely Macromedia branded. People complain about Microsoft trying to hold on too tightly to what people create, but this is just ludicrous.

  12. mike chambers says:

    >Can the minimum price that a Try / Buy application be waived or modified for subscription based applications? ie for apps using the internal payment api.No. The minimum try / buy price cannot be waived.More info here:http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/productinfo/faq/#item-21Hope that helps…mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  13. mike chambers says:

    >Also, since the minimum try/buy is $5 can a company spend $5 for each customer/employee and buy an app for them – much more affordable than $20pa.Yes.This is covered in the FAQ.http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/productinfo/faq/#item-19mike chambersamesh@macromedia.com

  14. David Bisset says:

    Mark,I’ve got several posts going on about this over at centralmx, as you might imagine.May I ask what happens if you go beyond (or wish to go beyond) the 10,000 user limit for non-commercial applications? If that’s answered in the FAQ, can you provide a link? I’m planning to make another post on centralmx, and would love to have this piece of information. Thanks.

  15. mike chambers says:

    >How does the Amazon app fit in with the license?If Amazon wanted to a Central application, then we would most likely do a custom license with them.mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  16. Philip B says:

    First off, thanks to Mike for listening to the developers. But, oh yes, there’s a but.Having followed the discussion on the Central licensing terms closely, I am very dissapointed to see the changes which have been brought on.I feel Central has great potential, but why does Macromedia insist on imposing these (in my view) strangling licensing plans on the developers/companies? The newly announced licensing plan does indeed make it much clearer what is meant. But the content is not especially exciting! The imposed changes are so small that they do not seem to make a real difference. How do developer wishes of “flexible licensing” and “cheaper licensing” translate into blocks of 20 users and the price still being 20$ per user? I fail to see the reasoning.Quickly browsing the noncommercial license I am horrified! If I understand it correctly that is. As far as I can see, only 10000 users are permitted to use a free application. So, if an application is too popular, Macromedia feels a fee has to be charged?? Is this correctly understood? If so, I can’t even imagine in which reality the executives at Macromedia are living. Should Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera and the other browser makers begin charging content developers when their web pages get too popular? If Macromedia wants the developer community to prosper, this is clearly the wrong way.This is my outcry! If Macromedia wants success from Central, they need success in the developer community. I’ll bet Macromedia a million dollars that, well, they won’t earn a million dollars from this licensing plan!Philip B,DenmarkPS. Maybe we should start charging Macromedia for our consultancy work on Central. Anyone have an idea for a licensing plan?

  17. Peter says:

    > Anyone have an idea for a licensing plan?Yes, sell a special SDK version as an addon for Flash (2004 Version only). This new SDK could be used to create apps without the ongoing per app user cost. It would only work with Flash 7 (but maybe still compile to Flash 6 player). That boosts sales/upgrades of Flash and I would gladly pay up to the cost of Flash for Central as an addon with no ongoing fees for apps (perhaps even an annual license to use the sdk).I would expect you would sell Central to a significant percentage of your existing (very large) base of Flash developers plus boost the upgrades and sales of Flash 2004.I’m sure that would generate much more revenue for MM than the unpopular capacity license.

  18. Disappointed says:

    I thought MM will take a serious look at the licensing. They just clarified a few things, yet added a limit on Free license. The $20/user model has not changed.Whoever cooked up the Central license schemes should find another job. This is the most convoluted license scheme in the software industry.Central idea was so promising. Yet, MM is killing it before it even sees the light. $20 /user for the right to run a lillle app? I wonder how many of these Capacity licenses has MM sold so far.The App Finder statistics are revealing. Only one free app has even reached 4,000 downloads. There is NOT single Try/Buy app listed. This after three weeks of release – after six months of beta. No wonder. I thought among the three schemes at least Try/Buy seemed like a fair model (may be the lawyer forgot to add the one year clause to this!).MM does not want users to even find Free Apps easily. They came up with a Freeware finder which you need to find first! Why not let the user find both kinds of apps in the same Finder?So, if a Free App is downloaded by more than 10,000 what happens? $20/user?Majority of potential apps that can take advantage of Central model do not fall under any of the three licensing schemes. So, they are all supposed to call up MM for special licenses? Perhaps the big idea is to create a lot of work for lawyers. If MM is expecting a lot of companies/developers come knocking on the door for special licenses – they dont have to worry.For Central to succeed – all parties: MM, Developers, Enterprises as well as Consumers need to benefit. The way things are – neither Developers nor Enterprises would want to touch Central. Sadly, neither MM is going to make big bucks from this either.Eventually, the Apps will make Central successful. Right now, there is not much of an incentive for any useful apps to be developed under Central licensing schemes.That is really disappointing.

  19. Michael says:

    Macromedia’s current path is exactly like that described in Al Ries’s 1996 book on corporate america titled “focus”. More specifically Macromedia belongs in the chapters that focus on why corporations fail because they lack focus or head in directions that don’t serve them well.It details many companies that lost sight of their own base of customers and making dangerous assumptions branching into new areas without doing extensive research. Sound familiar?Who the hell is going to sell Central? This is yet another black hole compared to what could have been done if time, money and energies were spent in other arenas (such as an SDK for flash as suggested rather than this elaborate goal to annuitize their business).Hell, even some R&D into creating a director extra would have been faster and cost less time and investor money.No wonder Rob Burgess and other insiders dumped 80% of their shares of MACR just days before the Studio MX 2004 release.

  20. Anthony Graddy says:

    When I first heard of Central, it did not seem too impressive to me. But then I downloaded the beta and I was truly amazed. I started brainstorming all of the different great programs I could develop for it. I have been involved in making some Flash apps for PocketPCs and have sold them through sites such as Handango so I was familiar with selling apps through a website and the site taking a cut of the profits. I figured that Central apps would be sold in a very similar manner. But then the licensing plans were revealed (and recently updated), and I have to agree with many of those who have posted that the licensing plans will keep Central from taking off.After gaining a lot of understanding through the CentralMX discussion and also seeing the latest licensing options, I have to say that my enthusiasm for creating Central applications is completely gone and I am sure that I am not the only developer to feel this way. I still think Central is an amazing product and I would love to create apps for it, but the present licensing scheme does not offer me any viable solutions to build and deploy apps.Most of the Central apps that can be created (at least all that I have seen or heard about) do not provide a great deal of utility to their users. All together in the Central environment they offer a great amount of utility, but I could never see myself paying $5 for each app individually. I really cannot envision many users paying $5 for any of the apps that I have seen. I believe this in itself will be a great detriment for Central.In my opinion most of the apps that would work great in Central would be ones that help promote something, sell something, provide information, games, etc. These type of apps I do not think most users would be willing to spend money on when they can get it for free on the internet. That is why I am in agreement with others who have posted that Macromedia should sell a plugin to allow someone to develop unlimited apps for Central. I believe that this would bring in a great amount of revenue to Macromedia and would also help Central quickly get off the ground because users would not have to buy simple applications. Developers could release some applications for free since they could be used in conjunction with other projects that actually bring in money (i.e. selling some kind of item). As for Macromedia, consider my own position. I currently use Studio MX and I have not found a need to upgrade to 2004 yet. If you offered to sell a plugin for Flash MX 2004 that would allow developers to create unlimited apps with no restrictive pricing plans, then not only would I be considering upgrading to Studio MX 2004 with Flash Professional, but I would also be considering buying the Central plugin to create Central content. I think if you offered this type of option, you would have a lot of developers out there who would suddenly become interested in Central again (and interested in upgrading their Flash program).Last of all, I would like to say thanks to Mike and everyone at Macromedia for listening to our complaints and doing your best to provide us with more options. Central truly is an amazing product. Keep up the great work.

  21. Anthony Graddy says:

    I wanted to make one more comment about the licensing plans. I think many people are confused as to the purpose of the different licenses. From my understanding, the capacity licenses are really better geared for companies that are planning to develop a lot of applications for Central. That is the reason why the user can install multiple applications and also why there is a yearly fee. If a corporation wanted to create a single Central application for its employees to use, it could use the Try/Buy license, sell the app for $5, and end up truly only paying $1 (20% of $5) per user.Why are the licensing plans so complex and difficult to understand? Wouldn’t it have been easier to setup a system for businesses who wanted to develop an app to simply register with Macromedia, tell Macromedia how many apps they want to use, and then pay $1 for each of those apps?Please consider the plugin option that I mentioned above. In my opinion, it would make everything much easier for everyone to understand, and it would also be following a business model you have already seen work with Flash.

  22. Barney says:

    Can someone from MM confirm this as it’s been stated several times in different places and I don’t think it’s ever been clearly addressed:”If a corporation wanted to create a single Central application for its employees to use, it could use the Try/Buy license, sell the app for $5, and end up truly only paying $1 (20% of $5) per user. “If that’s the case, then the volume licensing would only make sense for a company where _every_ user is going to use more than 20 in-house applications?? Because if you have a situation where 20 users are using only 4 apps, another 20 are using 6 apps, and yet another 20 users are using 10 apps then you would have to buy 60 licenses at $20 ea? It would be much cheaper to register the products individually and have each user purchase an individual license.And.. I don’t think the corporate folks are going to like the idea of having to set up a yahoo merchant account and _buy_ applications that their employees made for “internal use only”.. lol.And… I agree, a license plan that gives the option of $1 or $2 PER APP per user for internal use would be ok.

  23. Anonymous says:

    It seems to me that people are complaining about this without even creating an application and seeing if the licensing works. Where are all the Central applications from the 5000 beta users – we should have thousands at this point – not the paltry thirty or so that I have found scattered around. Lets see some apps! – the proof is in the pudding.

  24. Michael says:

    ISSUE #1 – ConfusionMacromedia needs to make the licensing agreement as easy to understand as is Central to download on a computer.ISSUE #2 – GambleMacromedia is gambling that their developers are going to adopt a licensing scheme. This is a total shift in policy and requires each developer to become a lawyer and an accountant just to get up to speed.ISSUE #3 – TrackingI have seen more than one person convey their concern of having to track this stuff beyond the original deployment. These are major concerns. Are developers going to have to create a Central application that acts as a contact management system to track all of their outstanding Central applications??? Sound silly, but this is the case in some instances.ISSUE #4 – Major shift in policyThis is a major shift from your own business model. Your users understand the current model of “buy once and develeop”. Everyone can understand and quantify purchasing say… Flash or Director for their own needs. There is no tracking or evaluating past the purchase unlike Central which is well beyond a 30 second elevator pitch.You are asking developers and designers to do a throrough cost analysis of how they can make money with Central. It is asking too much and it is just enough of a pain in the ass that many will never even bother to try and will do nothing.This entire flawed approach needs to hit the trash heap and be retooled. Tom Peters wrote an excellent book that nobody at Macromedia read. http://www.tompeters.com/Elaborate, intricate schemes to create residual income does not sell products. Central is great technology, but macromedia insists on sticking a square peg in a round hole.The quickest way to kill an idea or technology is to limit the ability for it to be used or deployed. It is like digging a deep moat around it so that you can only get to it by going over the sole route, which in this case is one lonely drawbridge. If that is what you were gearing for from the getgo then you’ve succeeded.Great technology, horrible business plan.For Example:If Central was a start up company’s first software product they ever produced… and that company was going to try and go public in a few years… no angel investor would put their money/capital to invest in it. It is too limiting in scope and cripples it from being used in the marketplace as IT COULD BE.It just so happens that because it is NOT macromedia’s sole offering, you are not willing to look at this objectively. These are major management mistakes in progress here.I’ve done VC work in the past. I can promise you that I wouldn’t pick up the phone once to tell the Central story if this were a startup company. However, you make central an SDK for flash Pro and I could find millions in VC capital in 24 hours. The difference is so obvious that I can’t comprehend why the Central business model is being defended.IT IS FLAWED! This is like watching a train wreck in real time.

  25. Michael says:

    One more comment:Has anyone even considered a HYBRID?An affordable pricing sold as an app… say a SDK for Flash Professional and…an easier and more affordable licensing agreement for deployment.This would produce front end sales to cover R&D and a residual income stream from apps. More importantly (from what I’m reading) … the current licensing scheme kills any app that can not generate ongoing income on it’s own.I had originally thought Central would ignite creativity and fun applications for all, but the pricing seems to make it only realistic for professional money making ideas.Why not a hybrid to bridge the gap here?

  26. mike chambers says:

    >ISSUE #3 – TrackingI have seen more than one person convey their concern of having to track this stuff beyond the original deployment.  These are major concerns.  Are developers going to have to create a Central application that acts as a contact management system to track all of their outstanding Central applications???  Sound silly, but this is the case in some instances.If you are building the app for internal use, you don’t have to track your apps as the license is per user not app.If you are building it for a client, then have the client purchase the licenses, not you. That way, you don’t have any extra over head, commitment.

  27. Michael says:

    Mike,Interesting that you only addressed the least important of the issues so far.

  28. mike chambers says:

    A lot of these posts are just rants saying that “macromedia doesn’t get it”? Please at least tell us what we don’t get.Is just that the cost is too high for you? i.e. you don’t see enough value in Central to justify the cost?We don’t expect everyone to use Central, or be willing to pay for it. Some people will see value in it and be willing to pay the price. Some people will see value in it, but not want to pay the price (and some people won’t see value in it at all). This is all just basic economic stuff.As far as where are the apps, well I know that quite a few are being developed, but because we are now talking about a commercial market place, developers are not releasing them until they are polished and ready. Thus requiring more time. Central has only been out for a couple of weeks.Finally, if you don’t see value in Central, what features would make you see value?mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  29. mike chambers says:

    Ok. How is this:>ISSUE #1 – ConfusionMacromedia needs to make the licensing agreement as easy to understand as is Central to download on a computer.http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/productinfo/faq/What about the license do you not understand.>ISSUE #2 – GambleMacromedia is gambling that their developers are going to adopt a licensing schemeWell, sure. But any new business venture or product is essentially a gamble that developers are going to adopt the technology.>ISSUE #4 – Major shift in policyI don’t know if it is a shift in official macromedia pricing policy. Central is a new type of tool / product / environment from macromedia, and thus it has a different type of pricing / licensing model.>You are asking developers and designers to do a throrough cost analysis of how they can make money with Central.Umm, I would expect that developers do this for any tool or environment that they invest in.>For Example:You gave a hypothetical situation, not an example.Hope that helps…mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  30. mike chambers says:

    hi. I just noticed that a couple of posts with different names are coming from the same id.If you post in the thread, please use the same name each time.mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  31. Gilles says:

    We have developed a Central application intended for broad mass audience in the personal productivity category with a good feeling that a professional company like Macromedia would provide adequate support for developers living outside the United States, and that target try/buy license schemes. We modestly think our application is stunning when compared to the -really- few we see on the App or Freeware Finders. So we are saying: “Let’s do it, let’s polish here and there but launch that thing!”Sadly, we feel the party is over as we’re now under the disagreeable impression of being somewhat betrayed by a company that appears disinclined of letting know that worldwide infrastructure for try/buy licensing is not something yet contemplated for developers. We surely think that the young nature of Central could explain such a situation but we’re having hard times explaining to us why Macromedia doesn’t clearly state so. Something that would explain to us: “Yes, we’re actually deciphering the complex interactions of financial systems and we intend a plan to be effective by [some date here]”, or maybe “Unfortunately, the agreement made between Yahoo and us will not permit worldwide support for developers living outside the U.S.”.But this is something we have to know!I’m speaking for a minority at this time, as Central development does not appear to have reached much publicity outside the U.S. yet. That’s why Central capacity pack issues take the lead here (for good reasons).As a Canadian company, we already have our set of rules and regulations, as well as our lot of paperwork: corporate fiscal returns, sales tax returns, and miscellaneous forms for financial institutions. On top of that, and we also have the usual bank, accountant and lawyer fees. Now, Yahoo -and Macromedia- would want us to establish a branch in the U.S., thus duplicating all that paperwork and fees, for maybe a Central flop?In the actual state of affairs, the “thing” will never see the light, not even under a non-commercial licensing scheme because we are sure it would get downloaded more that 10,000 times. What now? Hello Uncle Bill again? We are already quite fluent in .NET/C#. Sparkle maybe?But still, that Central thing {was|is?} a good idea. [Sigh here from Canada]

  32. dave says:

    Central is a truly laughable scheme. If MM expects a large organization to buy subscriptions to it’s OWN, IN HOUSE DEVELOPED applications, I would like to offer MM a capacity license for a new bridge across the atlantic……oh I almost forgot… you guys gotta build it!!!!!

  33. Initially, I was extremely excited about Central. My enthusiasm has waned due to the licensing issues already covered extensively here.My biggest issue at this point is that it is becoming clear that *most* people in this forum (and most other forums I’ve visited) have stated that due to licensing issues, they are not going to create apps for Central. This concerns me because the success of Central will only come when a majority of people begin using it on a regular basis. Since we all have different needs and interests, widespead adoption of Central will only come when there are many applications that address many needs. It sounds like to me that practically no one is interested in developing Central applications any longer. As a result, I see it heading down the road to minimal success. Minimal success means that Macromedia’s interest in the product wanes, and sometime down the road, Central will become known as that awesome technology that never really took off. I’m not sure I want to invest my time and energy on something that a number of developers are losing interest in due to licensing issues.I proposed the pay-once-Central-developers-license (where you pay one fee to enable you to develop all types of apps out the ying-yang) in another forum. That seems the most logical. I don’t pay for every Flash app I create and distribute. I simply pay for Flash one time, and I’m able to make as many Flash apps as I want. I like that, and it seems as if everyone else does as well.In summary, I see it this way:One-time general licensing fee = Central successCurrent capacity license (or any form close to it) = Bye bye Central.I don’t want this to happen, but my gosh, how many folks in the developer community have stated this themselves. If 9 out of 10 developers are no longer interested in Central development, how successful is it going to be?There is an overwhelming outcry about the problems with the capacity license. Anyone else here it? It’s loud!!! Unless another solution is created (one that in no way involves paying $X amount for each user), Central will soon become a thing of the past. I *really* hope this doesn’t happen.Best,Derek

  34. mike chambers says:

    >Central is a truly laughable scheme. If MM expects a large organization to buy subscriptions to it’s OWN, IN HOUSE DEVELOPED applications,I suggest that you read the FAQ at:http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/productinfo/faq/We don’t expect you to buy subscriptions to develop your application. However, if you want to deploy that application via Central, then you need to purchase a capacity license.If not, then you can just deploy via the web browser.mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  35. Michael says:

    I was looking for real answers, not one line cop-outs.These are serious issues, but obviously your answers don’t reflect that belief.The most successful companies ask their customers what they want. Then they create the product or service for them and find a workable payment model around it.Central is a brilliant technological idea. The Central financial model is Bass Ackwards.Square peg, round hole = slows and hinders true potential.

  36. mike chambers says:

    >The most successful companies ask their customers what they wantActually, that is exactly what I have been doing. But instead of people saying what they want there are just of “Macromedia doesn’t get it” posts.So, Michael, what do you want? Do you not want to pay for Central? Do you want a cheaper licenses? Are you even interested in Central?mike chambersmesh@macromedia.com

  37. Philip B says:

    Mike, why are you being so stubborn about the current licensing plan. If Macromedia really is so flexible as you say, why don’t you change the licensing once and for all. It should be clear from these comments and the comments on the previous licensing that it just doesn’t work!>Actually, that is exactly what I have been >doing. But instead of people saying what >they want there are just of “Macromedia >doesn’t get it” posts.Not true! Lot’s of people have contributed with their ideas, we are not just pointing our fingers at you, we are trying to be constructive. If you (Macromedia) were willing to tell us, the developers, “ok, the current licensing wont work. Now what?”, I’m sure many people would help in creating a license everyone could agree on. But you seem so obsessed that the licensing plan will work in its current form. It just wont!By the way, someone mentioned that try/buy apps cannot be sold by developers outside the US. Why is this? Just so you know, there are 6 billion people in the world. Only 280 milliion live in the US.Philip B,Denmark

  38. Peter says:

    Mike, thanks for requesting and responding to feedback. Central is a great (even brilliant) technology and I’d really like to see it suceed. Unfortunately there are other (less desirable) technologies that can create similar apps so developers will need to sell the ROI of Central to their management.I’ve run through a number of scenarios and I just can’t see it. Under what circumstances would it be better for a company to use Central over 5 year rather than competing technologies and when would it be better to buy a capacity license rather than sell the app to themselves for $5 (MM keeps $1 per app).eg.1. Develop in Java, .NET, Flash etc. and deploy to 4000 users or computers – no additional or ongoing cost.2. Sell the Central app back to the company for $5 (MM keeps $1 per app) (deployed to 4000 computers), costs a net $4000 one-off cost with no ongoing fees.3. One Central App deployed on a capacity license to 4000 users costs a company $80,000 per year. $400,000 over five years (a reasonable life span for a good app). Over a five year period a company would need to be running 100 in-house Central apps to make it worthwhile having a capacity license. Central would need to be a LOT better than competing technologies to justify an extra cost (on top of normal development costs)of $400,000 over 5 years.I hadn’t fully worked through the maths before but Mike can you give some examples of where it would be better to use Central (rather than competing technologies) and, if using Central, use a capacity license?ie. Over a five year period a try/buy would cost $1 per computer (per app), a capacity license could cost $100 per user (unlimited apps)….and there is still no licensing solution for one of Central’s greatest uses – free (to the potential customer) promotional apps.

  39. nospam says:

    You need to think about other costs than just license cost when comparing to other technologies, such as the cost of upgrading apps on all of your companies desktops (which is virtually nil for Central, but could be very high for other technologies).

  40. Anthony Graddy says:

    Hey Mike,I first want to say that I think you and Macromedia are listening to us (otherwise we would not be having this long posting). So I want to say thank you.I was hoping you could comment on two issues.1. Many people have commented that they would be much more willing to develop for Central if there was simply a one time fee to develop (similar to Flash). I have not seen you comment on this suggestion, so I was hoping you could let us know if Macromedia has considered it, and if so, what was decided.2. When Macromedia was first releasing information about Central, my impression was that it was a program that was geared towards the masses. From my understanding of the licensing schemes, this no longer seems to be the case. I have seen you post numerous times that “We don’t expect everyone to use Central, or be willing to pay for it.” I was wondering if you could clarify Central’s goals. Is it still geared towards the masses? I don’t know too many people in the masses who are going to be willing to plop down $5 per app. If it is not geared towards the masses, then who is it geared for? It seems to me that a lot of people in the developer community want to take Central in one direction (a program for the masses with free or purchased apps that can generate money in other ways – similar to free IM programs); while Macromedia seems to be pushing Central for businesses and people with money who don’t mind paying $5 for an app. If you could clarify Central’s goals, I think it would help a lot of people out.Once again, I want to thank you for all of the time you put into listening and responding to the developer community. I don’t post comments much, but I definitely read the sites a lot, and it is very evident that you and Macromedia care about the developer community and put effort into listening to us.

  41. Barney says:

    Mike – you asked for suggestions..suggestion #1 – a license plan that gives the option of $1 or $2 PER APP per user for internal use would be ok. (i.e. $20 for 20 users for each application with no yearly renewal)suggestion #2 – a license plan that allows all apps to be distributed freely in Central except those listed in the “App Finder”. Apps listed in the “App Finder” would all be try/buy and MM would take a commission.Suggestion #3 – use Suggestion #2 and increase the cut MM gets when an app is sold using the App Finder. If you increased it to ? 40% ? people would still make apps and sell them through the app finder.Suggestion #4 – sell licenses to _developers_ – i.e. I can develop custom applications for my employer, for outside clients, etc. and the people who use those apps won’t have to pay. However I have to pay a fee ($100/application ?) in order to obtain the productID. They (and I) won’t have to keep track of how many users are using the application, they won’t have to renew the license each year, etc.Suggestion #5 – keep the current licensing scheme.. it’s not bad at all if MM wants to focus on selling via the try/buy channel and sell only a few licenses to corporate clients. If there are just a few killer apps that are placed on the App Finder for $15 or $20 and they sell well then MM can still bring in some cash.Suggestion #6 – productIDs should not be “per year” they should be permanent.. my boss and my clients won’t be happy when they have to fork over more money each year = I’m not very likely to use Central.Suggestion #7 – The minimum of $5 for a try/buy application is a bit much.. The next killer app isn’t going to be a $100, $50, $20, or even $5 app.. it’ll be a $1 or $2 app. Check out how much money is being made off of ring tones for cell phones. The exciting thing about Central as a developer was that I could put out a tiny application that everyone could use.. and sell it so cheaply that people would actually pay for it. $5 is just over that limit where people are more likely to not buy.

  42. Michael says:

    Others comments are in quotes. I comment right after their quotes looking for more clarity.#2 was the original intent as is still outlined in Macromedia’s white paper on Central. However, it conflicts with this whole business model. Interesting that the white paper was released in October.————————————————-#1″””my clients won’t be happy when they have to fork over more money each year = I’m not very likely to use Central.”””Mike, now there is a quote from a developer, clearly stating they would rather “pass” on the whole technology because it is unworkable in their business environment. That is a guy you should be picking the brain of….#2″””my impression was that it was a program that was geared towards the masses”””Mike, even the white sheets on Central has a theoretical day in the life of “LISA” where she checks her central apps which check the weather, her recipe of the day, and movie listings. This is in the October 2003 white papers at Macromedia.com. How does Lisa fit in with the licensing scheme slanted towards corporate america? Why the conflict/confusion?This is clearly the original intent of Central. When did the big shift towards big business occur? I guess someone should have deleted Lisa’s Central day seeing that it doesn’t fit the newly reincarnated Central. (Later Lisa… have fun at the movies).#3″””Many people have commented that they would be much more willing to develop for Central if there was simply a one time fee to develop (similar to Flash). I have not seen you comment on this suggestion, so I was hoping you could let us know if Macromedia has considered it, and if so, what was decided.”””If I know corporate america well this attempt at creating residual income is a decision that will never be reversed (sadly). However, a hybrid model would be much more efficient than its current offering.Mike, what is so bad with lowering the ongoing fees as suggested in many posts above and simply charging for say and SDK add on kit to Flash Professional? Why??? Because many developers will never even touch Central because of the high bar that exists (fees already outlined above).Why not charge an up front fee for the app and then a much lower ongoing fee. If this technology is as good as it seems and developers perceive enough value….they’ll pay for the app up front and there will still be ongoing income/revenue.I think a Hybrid approach makes more sense to allow two things to happen.1. Allow for more affordable apps to be offered (and more developers will create those apps)2. Up front sales will cover R&D.But it would have to be a reasonable fee structure on both sides of the coin otherwise you get what is going on now with the Studio MX suite… YAWN.

  43. jacob Reider says:

    We considered developing Central apps. There was even some enthusiasm.With 2000 employees .. implementing a tiny app such as a phone book would cost us $40,000.never mind.This licensing is prohibitive. Too bad – it’s a potentially useful environment.

  44. Michael says:

    Mike,To answer your question. Yes I would use central, but Jacob’s example above is why I can’t under its current form.The business model is so flawed that I don’t know where to lead you. Just look at the numbers above. This is an issue with so many that most will simply turn their heads away from the model rather than find a way to make it happen.A radical shift needs to occur so that the white papers “LISA” example that is on macromedia’s website can actually occur. Otherwise you should delete “LISA’s” day because no developer would create her apps under the current model.Again, great technology, but not a workable business model from OUR perspective. Square peg, round hole. Throw out the model and start over.I think if you mail out to your userbase to fill out a survey you’ll find that nobody would prefer this rigid scheme macromedia has dreamed up. It’s a nightmare no matter how you run the numbers.Instead of providing residual income (obviously the goal here) it will prevent the widespread usage of the technology because it is the very business model itself that is preventing developers from getting on board here.Will there be apps? Yes. However, the true potential of Central will never be realized unless you lower these barriers from the beginning.I’d really like to know who it is on the food chain that is grasping so tightly to this model. It is so flawed every way you run the numbers that I question who is actually paying attention.The bar is raised so high right now that many will simply ignore Central altogether.

  45. John says:

    What happened to Intel Hotspot application? Under what license does it fall under?

  46. Cliff says:

    “What happened to Intel Hotspot application? Under what license does it fall under?”Very good point. Is Intel not benefiting indirectly from the fact that the Hotspot finder has their name and logo plastered on it? In which case, surely it must fall under the capacity license?

  47. Ignat says:

    Come to play to Prestige Casino one of the best Casinos on-line!

  48. Arkadius says:

    Home electronics store

  49. Ilya says:

    What do you need website optimization for? To have top positions in search engines is to attract your prospective consumers.

  50. Piter says:

    Welcome to Saint-Petersburg – the Northern capital of Russia, its historical, architectural and cultural centre! It is one of the most beautiful cities in the world

  51. Alexey says:

    Hello, Visit my site http://www.knowledge-database.com. This is a smart meta search engine that is intended for providing you with information and useful links pursuant to your inquiries.

  52. James says:

    Nise site and fine content

  53. James says:

    Its a great site. Keep on good works!

  54. Vladimir says:

    Visit my site to get more info about Macromedia and other

  55. Vladimir says:

    Visit my site to get more info about Macromedia and other http://www.generalcatalog.info