1) Open Source is commercial. You can sell open source software.
2) Hobbyists can sell software too... and I can't see why hobbiysts are willingly to spend lots of dollars for a camera, a guitar, a bike, whatever you like but can't spend $450 for an IDE - just because you can't copy a camera or a bike??
3) Most people would buy the "non-commercial" version and develop commercial software anyway - how could CodeGear track it? Tracking costs money, and can offset any earning.
4) Illegal usage won't decrease but for 3) - people using illegal software don't like to pay even $30.
There previously was a Personal license that fit that niche. Also the Turbo and Turbo Explorer versions fit that niche. The issue is there are 4 groups:
Buys based on features first, price second (enterprise, etc.)
Buys on price not features - needs to be cheap, preferably free (hobbiest, etc.)
Only for free, with no qualms about licensing (pirates.)
The 3rd group is characterized by the fact the pirate the Architect version when they are only using features in the Professional version (or free version if one existed). They will never convert to a paying customer, although may convert to a free version if it has all the features they want (although unlikely.)
The issue with trying to maximize the 2nd group (turn all of them into customers) is you don't want to move people from the 1st group. If someone is buying based on features, and you offer a lower featured version for less money, they may be happy with that version and just buy it. Why not save money?
Non-Commercial is too nebulous of a license as has been pointed out by others. If you cripple the features too much then it is a wasted effort to make the offer since no one will want it and reflect poorly on the professional version. The only thing that would work is a nag-screen, but that would be really annoying too, and by the very nature of the users would be easily bypassed.
So the bottom line is the money that keeps a company afloat is in maximizing the 1st group. Attempting to appease the 2nd and 3rd groups can actually result in lost money. Although I agree that if they want to target more hobbiests then they really need a free / low-cost offering (an updated Turbo and Turbo Explorer).
发布评论
评论（3）
Turbo Delphi 可免费使用。
Turbo Delphi is free to use.
1) 开源是商业的。 您可以出售开源软件。
2) 爱好者也可以出售软件……我不明白为什么爱好者愿意花很多钱买相机、吉他、自行车，无论你喜欢什么，但不能花 450 美元买一个 IDE - 只是因为你不能复制相机或自行车吗？
3) 大多数人无论如何都会购买“非商业”版本并开发商业软件 - CodeGear 如何跟踪它？ 跟踪需要花钱，并且可以抵消任何收入。
4) 非法使用不会减少，但 3) - 使用非法软件的人甚至不愿意支付 30 美元。
1) Open Source is commercial. You can sell open source software.
2) Hobbyists can sell software too... and I can't see why hobbiysts are willingly to spend lots of dollars for a camera, a guitar, a bike, whatever you like but can't spend $450 for an IDE - just because you can't copy a camera or a bike??
3) Most people would buy the "non-commercial" version and develop commercial software anyway - how could CodeGear track it? Tracking costs money, and can offset any earning.
4) Illegal usage won't decrease but for 3) - people using illegal software don't like to pay even $30.
之前有一个适合该利基市场的个人许可证。 Turbo 和 Turbo Explorer 版本也适合这个利基市场。 问题是有 4 组：
第三组的特点是，当他们只使用专业版本（或免费版本，如果存在）中的功能时，就会盗用架构师版本。 他们永远不会转变为付费客户，尽管如果它具有他们想要的所有功能（尽管不太可能），他们可能会转变为免费版本。
试图最大化第二组（将他们全部转变为客户）的问题是你不这样做不想把第一组的人调走。 如果有人根据功能进行购买，而您以更少的钱提供功能较低的版本，他们可能会对该版本感到满意并直接购买。 为什么不省钱呢？
正如其他人指出的那样，非商业许可证的含义过于模糊。 如果你过多地削弱功能，那么提供这个报价就是浪费精力，因为没有人会想要它并且对专业版本的反映很差。 唯一有用的是导航屏幕，但这也确实很烦人，而且根据用户的本质，很容易被绕过。
因此，底线是维持公司生存的资金在于最大化第一组。 试图安抚第二和第三组实际上可能会导致金钱损失。 尽管我同意，如果他们想瞄准更多的爱好者，那么他们确实需要免费/低成本的产品（更新的 Turbo 和 Turbo Explorer）。
There previously was a Personal license that fit that niche. Also the Turbo and Turbo Explorer versions fit that niche. The issue is there are 4 groups:
The 3rd group is characterized by the fact the pirate the Architect version when they are only using features in the Professional version (or free version if one existed). They will never convert to a paying customer, although may convert to a free version if it has all the features they want (although unlikely.)
The issue with trying to maximize the 2nd group (turn all of them into customers) is you don't want to move people from the 1st group. If someone is buying based on features, and you offer a lower featured version for less money, they may be happy with that version and just buy it. Why not save money?
Non-Commercial is too nebulous of a license as has been pointed out by others. If you cripple the features too much then it is a wasted effort to make the offer since no one will want it and reflect poorly on the professional version. The only thing that would work is a nag-screen, but that would be really annoying too, and by the very nature of the users would be easily bypassed.
So the bottom line is the money that keeps a company afloat is in maximizing the 1st group. Attempting to appease the 2nd and 3rd groups can actually result in lost money. Although I agree that if they want to target more hobbiests then they really need a free / low-cost offering (an updated Turbo and Turbo Explorer).