4 ms·
> The best part is that many people think that an on-premises version should be less expensive than the online version, and come without a subscription. Which
by rgun 7y ago
> The best part is that many people think that an on-premises version should be less expensive than the online version, and come without a subscription.
Which makes sense IMHO, provided they are not expecting any updates to their on-prem installation. It can just be a fork of your current codebase with no new features or warranty. Maybe you can include some terms for critical security updates but that is about it.
- jwr 7y agoBut that, unfortunately, is entirely unrealistic. When I discover critical bugs, I can't leave users out in the cold. I believe that the whole concept of "software without support" is fundamentally flawed.
- rgun 7y agoAgreed. But if a user agrees to be left "out in the cold", you should allow him to. Given that it is not very costly for you to prepare your software for on-prem, it maybe a win-win for all the parties involved.
- jwr 7y ago> Given that it is not very costly for you to prepare your software for on-prem I have been asserting exactly the opposite in this thread.
- rgun 7y agoAssuming you are not providing any updates (not even security critical ones for argument's sake), you only need to package and add documentation for an on-prem installation. Why is it so costly?
- scbrg 7y ago> you only need to package and add documentation None of which are insignificant. In addition to that you must now support (and test for) a million configurations, rather than just one.
- FpUser 7y agoFUD. Among my products I have desktop software. Sure I got some pains upon initial release but it's been literally years since I really needed to test "for million configurations". I also have experience developing and maintaining cloud solutions. Total amount of work that goes into large cloud apps and amount of things things that can brake or not work properly is fairly impressive. Definitely not any less then on premises
- RustyBucket 7y agoI think we as engineers owe our users bug fixes, because we messed up at some point. However new functionality or email/phone support? Well, this is what people are not entitled for.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoWell, this is what people are not entitled for. But they will expect it.
- FpUser 7y agoAnd pay for upgrades
- anoncake 7y agoOnly for a limited time though, releasinga piece of software shouldn't be a lifetime commitment.
- FpUser 7y agoAnd what if your software is mature and you do not discover any critical bugs?
- UserIsUnused 7y agoI too like fantasy land.
- FpUser 7y agoMaybe you should look in the mirror. If you are actively developing software and adding new features - sure, you might be also developing critical bugs. In my case for example I have few older products (desktop apps that still sell and bring some money) for which I have source code that has not been touched for years. Not interested in development new features either as those apps are mature and there is not much ROI in developing new features the whole 2.5 customers are willing to pay for. Long story short I do not have any critical bugs there. Maybe do exist and hiding somewhere but since nobody had ever discovered them I am totally cool. The only occasional customers complaint I have every once in a while is RTFM type. Not real bugs.
- UserIsUnused 7y agoMy mistake, I did misinterpreted you.
- JohnFen 7y agoI sell nothing but on-prem software, and have never left my customers "out in the cold" or without support.