realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Hooray, I'm back .... and can't register for the web forum?!

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Hooray, I'm back .... and can't register for the web forum?!
From: Giovanni <rbml at alphaview dot com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:20:22 -0700
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com designates 66.116.103.65 as permitted sender) smtp dot mail=realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <mailman dot 5295 dot 1209533260 dot 24661 dot realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com> <E15F3E84-B6F8-464B-817D-73EC5141DA2F at ruegers dot net> <73F6323E-2DE8-4E11-8C07-3EE38CA5BCD8 at great-white-software dot com> <eb8fc1930804300957u6b95277x9ab30fd1f42aa93c at mail dot gmail dot com> <6DA7E8F0-D275-444B-A9A5-97FAA7019DB6 at great-white-software dot com>
I guess that release issues have existed in RB for quite sometime.

"  The other odd thing that occured with the release of 2.0 is that  
there was no stop in the flow of new developer releases once "2.0"  
came out. They were called 2.0.1a1, a2, etc., but they may as well  
have been DRs. Just look at the release dates in our news section, and  
you'll see that 2.0 came smack in the middle of a ten day streak of  
daily updates. When 1.0 came out, there wasn't another developer  
release of it for two months!
   So if "2.0" was really a developer release, why was it labeled as  
release quality material? Like most things nowadays, I suspect money  
was the key factor. It's been a while (almost a year) since 1.0 came  
out, so the stream of registrations is probably slowing down a bit. As  
a company, REAL SW has to make money to avoid debt or even bankruptcy,  
so they took their easiest way to get in more money: make people buy a  
new version.

   As long as version 2.0.1 and its followers fix most of 2.0's bugs,  
this strategy is fine by me–I always use DRs. However, charging $100  
for an incomplete, and buggy program is hardly going to get good  
reviews for you. Let alone charging an extra $200 for two even more  
incomplete features (databases and windows)...

   Frankly, releasing 2.0 before it was ready doesn't raise huge  
problems for me. The real problem is that for most people, it will.  
REAL's income might jump up for a while, but this stunt might come  
back to haunt them."



Kind regards,

Giovanni
rbml at alphaview dot com



On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Norman Palardy wrote:

>
> On 30-Apr-08, at 10:57 AM, dda wrote:
>
>> Heh, those who still remember Geoff's email announcing Andrew Barry's
>> departue, please raise your hand. Bonus point for remembering the  
>> date
>> ;-)
>>
>> -- 
>> dda
>
> Andrew left Sept 1, 1999 but the announcement was on July 12, 1999
> Sept 1 was the ship date for version 2.1
>
> Lots of history at http://www.nd.edu/~jvanderk/rbm/
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
> <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
>
> Search the archives:
> <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>