Livecode Create - thoughts?

[AndyP]

Hi Zax, looking at the info, if you do not charge for software built with LiveCode Create then all you pay is the monthly fee for livecode Create.

From the faq

If you build and ship an app that is completely free, with no commercial benefit to you or to a client you build it for, then the end users of that app are free, you do not require a license for them. For example a free educational app used by students would fall into this category. You do still need to purchase a developer license for yourself. Free apps will display a LiveCode Create badge throughout the app, and will have “Made with LiveCode – Non Commercial Use Only” notices you are not permitted to disable. Educational apps will display an “Educational use only” badge in addition to these.

[Zax]

Hi Zax, looking at the info, if you do not charge for software built with LiveCode Create then all you pay is the monthly fee for livecode Create.

Thanks for pointing out this solution, but in the case of freeware distribution - that is to say without financial compensation -, or simply to develop some small tools for personal use *, the monthly cost of LC Create is too high.

* For example, I have developed some small apps that only serve to display a UI to call shell, python or applescript commands.

[mblackman]

I can see the need for change. No, I was not surprised to hear from KM that the product side of the business runs at a loss.
But I reckon you really need to consider a grandfathering scheme for your loyal existing customers !
One where internal apps and utilities are Free to distribute.

[cmhjon]

Although I may have missed something somewhere, if I haven't, this new pricing model will put me out of "business". I have developed roughly 6-7 apps for my co-workers just to make their lives easier. I have never made a single dollar on any of my apps and I pay for the LC subscription out of my own pocket. I've had a lot of fun with LiveCode but now, it looks like I may be forced out of using LC in 2027. So, let's see if I have this right:

1. As a developer, my license will be $440/year, right?
2. I have roughly 20 users who use one or more of my apps on a daily basis. Each user license is also $440/year, right?
3. If yes to #1 and #2, I am looking at $8800/year, right?

If yes, I can't afford that and I know my company won't pay for it (the little things my apps do don't justify that kind of money).

If I have understood all the above correctly, 2027 will be the last year I use LC which makes me quite sad. Of course, if I have missed something, please tell me!

Jon

[dunbarx]

I am in the same boat. I develop exclusively for myself, family, friends and, for my own company, a single standalone for internal use by three engineers. I make no money for any of this, though the standalone is invaluable to us.

In speaking with Kevin and Heather, I know that my costs are nowhere near the numbers you mentioned. But frankly, I do not know exactly what they will be.

So maybe Kevin can create a mythical handful of generic users, ranging from least to greatest usage/cost. In that way it should be simple to "find" the closest match to any particular person's situation. Otherwise this confusion will never end.

Kevin?

Craig

[richmond62]

'This confusion' is something that has gone on for many, many years, and, at last people may work out what it is really telling them.

[stam]

Although I may have missed something somewhere, if I haven't, this new pricing model will put me out of "business". I have developed roughly 6-7 apps for my co-workers just to make their lives easier. I have never made a single dollar on any of my apps and I pay for the LC subscription out of my own pocket. I've had a lot of fun with LiveCode but now, it looks like I may be forced out of using LC in 2027. So, let's see if I have this right:

1. As a developer, my license will be $440/year, right?
2. I have roughly 20 users who use one or more of my apps on a daily basis. Each user license is also $440/year, right?
3. If yes to #1 and #2, I am looking at $8800/year, right?

If yes, I can't afford that and I know my company won't pay for it (the little things my apps do don't justify that kind of money).

If I have understood all the above correctly, 2027 will be the last year I use LC which makes me quite sad. Of course, if I have missed something, please tell me!

Jon

I’m in the same boat. While Andy’s post above suggests that apps like this should be available without having to pay a sub for each user (just display a ‘made with livecode’ notice), what is not clear to me is when must other users pay a sub? Kevin clearly stated this will be required in some cases where made available to others in an organisation.

I’m really not clear when costs would apply… ie when is free with a “made with livecode” notice and when users of said apps need to pay a subscription. I understand the 5% levy and that’s fine, the cost is small and can be passed on to the user.

But when is free not free?

[PaulDaMacMan]

1. As a developer, my license will be $440/year, right?

$440 per year? Is it $36 month? Or lump sum only?
I don't know if I'm willing to pay even $36/mo to play around with various ideas in my spare time (of which I don't really have any) and maybe never have a commercial release quality app to sell enough of to possibly break even.

[Simon Knight]

But when is free not free?

It seems when the app is used in by co-workers even if you are not paid to develop the app and have paid for your own license. One solution might be to sell the app for a small fee e.g. £1 via a web site, this works if you have more than one person buying the application and it is not seen as an obvious attempt at avoiding the full license fee.

$440 per year? Is it $36 month? Or lump sum only?

According to Heather they may think of a monthly fee some time in the future so its not available now.

[stam]

But when is free not free?

It seems when the app is used in by co-workers even if you are not paid to develop the app and have paid for your own license. One solution might be to sell the app for a small fee e.g. £1 via a web site, this works if you have more than one person buying the application and it is not seen as an obvious attempt at avoiding the full license fee.

Well perhaps I'm not getting it, but it seems at odds with what @AndyP posted above "from the FAQ" which I personally have not been able to find (and have not received any email communication which I get the impression some may have received):

From the faq

If you build and ship an app that is completely free, with no commercial benefit to you or to a client you build it for, then the end users of that app are free, you do not require a license for them. For example a free educational app used by students would fall into this category. You do still need to purchase a developer license for yourself. Free apps will display a LiveCode Create badge throughout the app, and will have “Made with LiveCode – Non Commercial Use Only” notices you are not permitted to disable. Educational apps will display an “Educational use only” badge in addition to these.

I must really not be getting it because there seem to be conflicting possibilities regarding producing standalone apps:
1. Commercial app - for profit: LC gets 5% (which I think is fair, and this is the only alternative I'm clear on)
2. Commercial app - freeware: same as (1) but LC gets 5% of $0 (?) Or is freeware now not possible and has to be either case (3) or (4)?
3. Non-profit app: display a badge and no subscription required for users
4. Non-profit app: "within an organisation" (?) - each user of the app needs a subscription

Cases 2,3 and 4 are all pretty much the same but somehow not and (4) would be completely unsustainable for a number of us that currently use LC in this way.
For some of us, this is the very reason we even looked at LC to start with (for example when FileMaker did this to its developers, who then left in droves).

--------------------------------
EDIT:
I just noticed Simon included a link at the start of the OP - I misunderstood this to be the generic "Create" link we've seen before and just followed it now, and found the famed "FAQ". I'll have to digest the "FAQ" further, but from what I've seen, this still raises some potentially unpleasant questions.

[stam]

OK, having read the FAQ (not sure where I was supposed to find this link, presumably an email has gone out, if that's the case I'm still off LC's mailing list it seems). It does answer almost all my questions except one point of severe confusion: the 'internal users' policy:

1. What is the logic behind requiring a subscription ($440/year) for each user within my organisation who uses a standalone I create, when realistically the cost to each user if they were actually purchasing the standalone would hardly be a fraction of that?

I really don't understand the logic here:
If I sell my app for $100 then at most LC will get $5 from me (very fair). Assuming this is a one-off sale and not a subscription service I'm offering, and I sell to 20 users, that's a total 1-off payment of $100 to LC Ltd. However with internal users policy this would translate to $8,800 per year if I share an app with colleagues at work. Or have I completely misunderstood this?

2. As the developer, if I am the sole user of the app I create, do I then need to purchase a second subscription to use my own standalone for myself? (i.e. will I need to be both the developer and the 'internal user'?)

3. As a doctor working on a number of wards, I will frequently log into multiple locations. If I have logged into multiple locations and used my standalone app that I created for myself, will that cause issues (ie will it log as multiple users if I haven't specifically shut down the app?)

4. In my case at least, I never stand to profit monetarily in any way from creating apps I share with coworkers. These apps fill gaps, but the apps used would not ever be purchased as such - so I fill the gaps out of my own pocket.
What does this mean for 'internal users'? Or does this then qualify as a "free app"?

This is the point that is most confusing.

And frankly the "internal users" policy does seem to assume that multimillion $$$ for-profit organisations are involved that will happily pay thousands for the privilege of using a standalone app I created. And this may well be the case for some. But for those of us working in non-profit/public sector organisations this is terminally non-viable.

THe alternative would be to provide a 'free' app with a badge as stated - but would this be permitted by LC given that it's explicitly stated that 'internal users' policy would apply?

[jameshale]

I was Manager Licensing and Procurement for a large Australian University before retiring and I can say that this licensing model for such a product as LC would not get a look in. Certainly a per seat charge for users is fine, but having that charge the same as the development seat, no.

It is also not clear what a seat is. For standalone apps, is it installations (i.e the number of workstations it is installed upon) or actual users (e.g I have 5 staff who have access to a workstation who all use the app from time to time.)

For server based apps this is even more muddled (does a seat count when users are not required to log in to the app specifically or only when they are registered to access it?)

A more robust definition of seat is required as is a reduced deployment (seat) cost

As I said, the current muddy license terms and cost wouldn't get a look in at my previous place of employment.

[FourthWorld]

As the developer, if I am the sole user of the app I create, do I then need to purchase a second subscription to use my own standalone for myself? (i.e. will I need to be both the developer and the 'internal user'?)

It's all so simple.
https://youtu.be/Xm5XUi3tKos

[DarkKnight]

I see LiveCode as a tool for building. If I buy a Dewalt saw and use it to build a house, I don’t owe Dewalt a percentage of the value of the home for each occupant.

[richmond62]

Once upon a time RR/LC charged a flat fee to BUY each of their products, and anything made with those products was wholly owned by the maker.

Because it was very simple (like the pricing on bags of flour in a supermarket) everybody could understand it.

It seems that all their other pricing models have caused uproar, confusion, and only really served to drive both current and potential customers away.

I would urge LC to return to that pricing model, and stick with it in perpetuity.