251–260 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i would rather say it's from the 'never let a competitor's dishonesty go unnoticed' that you call it a 'mistake' speaks very poorly of you
> that you call it a 'mistake' speaks very poorly of you There is zero need to launch personal attacks in this context.
the person lying about it by calling it a 'mistake' is engaging in precisely the same kind of violation of their own integrity as mattermost is
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they screw up in human ways though. That's not a human way. A human freelancer or friend wouldn't get away with just ghosting like that after promising something. They would have to own up and face the music. They screwed up in an institutional way: by changing policy when it suited them, and trying to cover their tracks.
What? Humans get away with crap like this all the time. You’ve never had a friend promise to show up to something and then not show up? Or promise to return a tool after borrowing it and not do it? Or a freelance contractor/handyman only do half a job?
And as for human flakiness... yes it's there. It feels different somehow but I can't put my finger on it. The last example feels most relevant... the contractor finishing half a job. That would be considered pretty shady, and I think for good reason.
For 25 years, Image Line have been shipping the FLStudio DAW as a one-off purchase with free lifetime updates, and since I've been receiving those updates for a significant chunk of those 25 years since I bought the Producer Edition, it seems pretty sustainable. In their words "Why? Because we believe you should get the program you paid for, bug-fixed and updated for as long as we develop FL Studio." [1] [1] https://…
One time payment and forever free updates means the product dies when the growth stalls OR they create other services around it and sell those. It can work for some products and often those turn into freeware once they find a subscription or consumables for which the users are eager to pay for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One time payment and forever free updates means the product dies when the growth stalls OR they create other services around it and sell those. It can work for some products and often those turn into freeware once they find a subscription or consumables for which the users are eager to pay for.
1000% this. It also means that the company is incentivized to continually add features that will lead to new sales, rather than improve existing features to make the product better for previous purchasers. I want to subscribe to pay for the products I depend on. Because I want to be an important stakeholder in product decisions. I do not want the company to consider me as sunk profit and a drag on expenses from here…
How? ImageLine and its competitors tend to offer free trial versions of their software, so they're not simply selling feature lists. Users can try out and feel the software, so there is an incentive to refining existing features, because those fundamentally form the basis of whether a potential customer buys or not.
Perhaps you could add more features to try to convincing users that already have a a DAW-of-choice to switch to FL Studio, but I think you overestimate how big this market is compared to the constant stream of new bedroom producers. A DAW can be a relatively big investment for a bedroom producer, not only in terms of money but in time to learn, so the cost to change your mind is high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was originally 1GB?
It was indeed originally 1gb and only ever grew. There even used to be a “live counter” of the max storage ticking up. OP is probably thinking of google photos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it my responsibility as a consumer to know that "forever is a word that should never be expected to hold" , rather than the business's responsibility to know that "forever is a word that should never be [promised if it cannot] be expected to hold" ?
I guess my eyesight must be failing me, or my reading comprehension and memory because I keep looking through what I said and I don't see a mention of responsibility anywhere. I would say it's not any consumer's responsibility to know that but when it does not hold it may be expected that the cynics who did not expect it to hold point sideways and chuckle because believing "forever" when you hear it is a bit too doe-…
In other words, I thought you were expressing the idea that businesses offering "forever" and then pulling back are not to be held accountable because that's business, rather than what (I now think) you meant, that was that one should never trust a business ostensibly offering something "forever".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to be funny, but if you're on a 'free forever' plan and happy with it there's already a close-to-0% chance they'll get any money off you...
Then why offer it to begin with? Presumably a company does so because there's some form of value for them.
At later stages those are less valuable, so they might not be getting value out of it anymore.
If a company gets rid of my free forever plan with them, there is a 0% chance that they're getting any money or positive word of mouth from me in the future. It's incredibly scummy behavior. If you're not willing to actually offer it forever, just call it a free plan instead of lying about it.
> If a company gets rid of my free forever plan with them, there is a 0% chance that they're getting any money or positive word of mouth from me in the future. It's incredibly scummy behavior. I'm sure they are also willing to give you back any money you have paid to date...
A "free plan" is one thing, and what you say is totally fair for that.
A "free forever plan", though, contains a promise. And whilst we know it isn't literally true (companies die or pivot, takeovers happen, economies crash etc), there's an element of broken trust when "forever" is not only dropped but the communications around it are silent or misleading about the loss.
I've no skin in the game (or axe to grind) but it feels like that might be the crux of the issue - it's a question of integrity when communicating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you’ve never made a mistake in your future predictions? youve never committed to something you couldnt deliver? i understand the outrage but remember the people on the other side of that screen are just humans too. many things dont turn out the way the initial intention was (im not excusing this specific instance, im just hoping for less vitriol when i someday make some over promising mistake in future). let he who i…
You must have missed this part if you read the article: > But Mattermost is breaking the “free forever” promise made to its customers, and without any acknowledgement or apology. The “free forever” note was quietly removed from Mattermost’s website in the month leading up to the announcement, and is never mentioned in the email Mattermost sent to affected customers. Surely, one can expect better than that from a comp…