More flavors of DesktopX Pro requested?

For $129, Sign me up!

For $129 i could get my father to stop using the silly Weatherbug program!

$129 is good for non-commercial!

But $499 for commercial is still too high! I suggest $299 as the commercial price!

Britt

It seems like the a) agreement would include distributing them online at all. How is people giving their objects away less damaging than someone selling them? It seems like the guy that gives nice objects away en masse' would hurt DesktopX sales more than commercial buyers who sell them to a limited number of users.

i would leave the price as it is. Any developer worth his salt is gonna see that $499 as the insane deal that it is, and others really don't need to be giving objects away that others could be buying DesktopX to use. If people are crying it is because they have no idea what software costs and probably have no intention of using it commercially.

$129.00 dollars for a home user who wishes to have the functionality you have added is more then reasonable. I would definately by it for that amount.

Although $129 will still be two high for a lot of people, I think that many _will_ find it acceptable at that price. To get really broad acceptance, selling it as a $50 upgrade to existing ObjectDesktop users would be very attractive. In any event, I think the idea of having both commercial and non-commercial licenses is definitely the right way to go, and $129, if not ideal, is obviously a lot better than $499. I just think that $129 on top of the ObjectDesktop price will be found by many to be a bit much for the whole package.

P.S.

One could also consider that branching out into commercial and enterprise level functionality adds revenue that could offset the cost of end-user software. Instead of lowering the price of the commercial apps, generate revenue with them and pass the profits on to the little guy. As has been said, if people can use use DX cheaply, and even freely, then why do they need to make standalone apps at home?

I'd love to be able to afford a copy of DX PRo, but at the same time I'm not gonna whine about what is a good price on a good app.

Will,

Have to agree, think the idea of a upgrade priced for those who already have a ObjectDesktop subscription would be a great idea. $129 is just a bit much but $50 and I think the cash registers would be ringing loudly.

$499 is a good sweet spot for commercial use, as you're targetting the corporate customer.

$129 - for -everything- that DX Pro does, for non-commercial use?? That's a -steal-. People need to look at the cost of comparable packages and what they would cost - that is, if they existed.

$129 for what can basically be used as a more streamlined application development studio of sorts? People who think the price is too much need to -really- look at all the software does!

A good point has been raised though - an upgrade offer for people with current ODNet subscriptions would be a good idea, too - if nothing else, it could even serve to bring in new Object Desktop customers!

My personal opinion would be that both prices are just too high, based purely on what other applications could be purchased for such money. HOWEVER, in the commercial arena, $500 just isn't a big amount of cash, and I wouldn't expect it to be a hinderance to those who would have a use for it. In non-commercial terms, I would certainly never entertain paying $130 for DXPro, because it just isn't a big enough feature to warrant an extra $130 over what I have already paid on ODNT subscription. $50 is certainly nearer the mark, but I still don't know that my own requireements would justify the outlay. Chances are I wouldn't upgrade anyway, but on simple impressionistic values, the non-commercial price would seem too high, and a loyalty upgrade discount to subscribers would be a nice touch as a minimum.

That's not to say I don't likle the idea of converting objects to exe's mind, that's pretty neat!

CAClark: "Neat" isn't the point, and I think that is what everyone is missing. There is absolutely no point for non-distributing home users to convert objects to exe files. I think Stardock is making a mistake listening to the opinions of folks that honestly don't understand what they app is about. I think those that shell out $129 for it will be crying the next week because they simply don't *need* the pro level app.

btw, If you would, please link up these "other applications" that can be had for less money. To my knowledge they simply don't exist.

As a software developer the $499 version is well priced. I agree mostly with Bakerstreet.

But a $129 version for non-commercial use, with a $99 upgrade from Object Desktop would be nice for power users who just want to make applications that they can send to friends.

Stardock could just put in the license something like applications created with DesktopX Pro may not be used to promote a website. So some DesktopX object maker could not get into the business of making these programs to push their new website.

Let's add more confusion to the mix:

DesktopX 2.1, coming out in December, will let you also create .EXEs (which we'll be calling widgets). But they won't be stand alone. When you click on them, if you don't have DesktopX it will bring up a dialog telling you where you can download DesktopX at.

We are not against the idea of having an upgrade price for ODNT users.  I share Bakerstreet's concern -- we don't want some website to start throwing up 1001 "gadgets" made up of DesktopX objects that have been turned into applications.

By non-commercial use we mean literally: Generated Applications could not be sold or used to MARKET a website, service, or product. So MyWidgetStudio.com could not have a "Free" site full of generated applications because those applications woudl be being used to market the site.

What we want to do is provide an opening for power users. DesktopX Pro is designed for professional software developers where $499 is not a significant investment for a tool of this power. But we don't want to ignore the sizeable power user market who might want to create stand along mini-applications to send to friends and family without requiring those people to have to download DesktopX.

 

Let me clarify my point.


How many people interested in skins and themes run DesktopX for a single object? It would be far, far more efficient to run several objects in a single theme on DesktopX than to run them as separate apps. 99% of the DesktopX Pro users are going to be running DesktopX anyway for IconX, etc. SO, the folks with no interest in distributing objects will eventually wonder why they paid the extra for the added functionality they don't use.

If people are distributing the objects to friends and family why not point them to DesktopX itself, and let them get the full functionality? If they are distributing them the the general public, well, I don't see that any differently than a commercial enterprise. The effect to stardock is the same.

If this is taken as an alternative to theming, I think you will only see disgruntled folks. The ones that make the executables will eventually wonder why they paid for the extra functionality they don't use, and those running 5 executables as a theme will wonder why in the world they are aren't running a real theme with *more* functionality.

On the other hand, as Frogboy says, this is the bees knees for an amateur developer who has no interest in theming and just wants to easily front-end his scriptable functionality. He could really use this app, and at $499 it is a good price for such.

Let me give you some examples of how I've been using DesktopX Pro for personal use and see how many others can relate to it:

1) I created quickie photo album with a link to my blog page. Each "page" on the photo album contains some text that explains what is happening in the picture. I turned this into an EXE (it was fairly large, like 2 megs) but I zipped it up and sent it to my family.  There is NO WAY my extended family would have been willing to go and download DesktopX to view this. But as a stand alone thing, they thought it was neat. 

2) My neighbors had a birthday party and asked me if I could put some games on their kid's computer for other kids to paly with. "Arcade games". One of the things I did was email him the Pac-Man and Tetris games as programs that he could use for that machine.

3) I have been making extensive use of the RSS feeds to send to friends who are interested in keeping up with JoeUser.com. They put it on their desktop.

4) My "snow flake" desktop has gotten considerable mileage with friends and family.

The target for these generated applications are casual, even novice users who just want to click on somethign and have it work. They won't know how to download and install DesktopX.

Now, on the other hand, when DesktopX 2.1 comes out with the exporting as a widget (non-stand alone EXE) then users will be able to decide whether they want to just make people download DesktopX or go to Pro.

Stardock is neutral in that respect. The only calculus really involved here is figuring out whether a $129 version will a) canabolize the $499 version and harm DesktopX object creation.

I don't think A will happen because $499 is too much more virtually anyone to purchase as hobby. And in the case of B, since public distribution won't be allowed (i.e. no 1001Widgets.com) that shouldn't be a problem either.

It's about opening up this, IMO, incredible technology to everyone.  Obviously some people will still find $129 or even a $99 upgrade (as Frank mentioned) "too much". But I suspect those people will be happily served by DesktopX 2.1 which is part of Object Desktop.

Will DX Pro let a user make an exe with SEVERAL objects in it ? Or will you have to create as many exe as objects that you want to use ?
That is, can you, for example, convert a THEME into a SINGLE exe, or do you need one exe for each object of the theme ?
I think that's a big point to consider too...

I think distributing exported objects as exe's to friends and family for their enjoyment is a wonderful use of Desktop X Pro. I would be willing to pay an upgrade fee from OD to get it. As for the undermining of the corporate version, I do see the point of the "1001widgets.com" theory. I understand that I, personally, am not going to be using the exe's. I have Desktop X 2...why would I need to use them?...The point of distributing the exe's to friends and family is that even if they wanted to install OD or just Desktop X...Most of them are as computer literate as I am, and their PC's won't run it, because they are so old and slow ...A standalone exe would really let me distribute things to them, so they can enjoy them too

Fix - you cannot convert themes to EXEs, that is what the Enterprise version does. Though you could put together several objects (snow flake example) and turn that into an EXE.

I believe Bakerstreet is bang on with this one. While making .exe's from DX would be something many(including myself) would enjoy, can spending the money for this feature honestly be justified for an average user or even a power-user.

Think about it for just one minute, how many objects could you make to give to how many family members and friends that would be worth even say just $100 for an upgrade as previously suggested?

I believe that the $499 price (when professional software is concerned) is a more than fair price for someone in the business community and so the price is justified.

Average people everyday pay $650 or so for Photoshop, when Paint Shop Pro is just as good for $100 but does that stop them, no.

I think if power-users truly want this feature, then they should just fork over the cash.

I dunno. I can only go by personal feeling on this. At $499 it has to be somethign I"m doing that I"m getting paid for. But $100, $150 I might plop down on something I use. Heck, I spend $100+ per month on games pretty regularly.

I tend to agree with Frogboys outlook on this. I spend >$100 quite regularly for things I use maybe 5 times and then just leave sitting on a shelf somewhere.. I'd spend the $129 on DXPro just to be able to give my parents and sister an easy way to do things on the computers I built and gave for them about a year ago. I could very easily make a "Control Center" that could allow one-click access to common tools like Disk Defragmenter, Disk Clean-up etc. that they would never know about otherwise. With the scripting back-end and the easy access to COM objects I can think of hundreds of cool little utilities that would help your average everyday user in their daily computing chores.. To be honest, when I saw that the Pro version was going to be able to do this I was really excited, when I saw the price I was less than excited, now that it may be available at a price that I consider more than fair I am really looking forward to the chance to try this out!!

I think that would be a mistake, the users that are sending e-mails just want to have all the funtions because they think is cool. But at the end they will be complaining that for that price they could have a better deal, more options, I don't know!
I don't see any reason to have the PRO version since I'm fine with Desktop X as an application and I don't see any need for creating standalone exe's. In my family I'm the only one that like computers and skinning.
Also, if you let users to give away exe's to everyone there wouldn't be new users and no new ObjectDesktop subscriptions. I think those users that want a smaller price don't need that power, unless they’re small business or something like that. This is just my opinion.

499 for comercial dev is good.

129 or around for non-commercial - meaning you can't SELL widget and maybe a mandatory note in the About dialog or something like that is good for me too. (As long as it is not... like a note on the fish on desktop right now).
Also, an alternative could also be that source of the exe should be available with the free widget you want to give to people (kind of like an open source license solution)

A price to pass from non-com to com... also good !

And a little reduction for already OD customers (though 50$ may be a little too low for that)... good to me !

I understand all the arguments of the 500 defenders, the problem is not there.

I'm a professional dev although it is not in this type of work, a non-commercial license could help someone like me to learn, share and go further in this field... Even if I stay with the non-commercial in the long term.

Being a pro dev doesn't also mean that... everyone can afford the 500$ now or even later in worst case.

It's an investment ! And it can depends on what you want to do with the investment.

My 2c

I think that those prices are just about right.

Raithe brings up a good point, a lot of people buy photoshop for 600 dollars while paint shop is just 100. also there is the free alternative GIMP. Why do these people buy photoshop? Probably because it is like "I have Photoshop, the proffessional program used by graphics designers". True, Photoshop is a great program, but paint shop comes really good to recreating it at a consumer friendly price

DesktopX may become a big thing, not just a little program that a few people have. It may become a "verb" like photoshop. "I photoshopped this pic"

The $499 price tag is completely acceptable for the commercial version of Desktop X.

The $129 price tag of the non-commercial is also very reasonable. Anything less than that, with the function of creating EXE's would be too low. If I really wanted the function of EXE's, I would definitely buy this, but being 11 years old means that this is a little high, and I don't really want to make EXE's out of Desktop X stuff.

In conclusion, the prices for both the commercial and non-commercial versions would be fine with me and hopefully many others.

-The 11 yesr old-

I think the $129 is very tempting and reasonable, and a slightly lower price for OD-subscribers would be even better.

$499 is way to Microsoft in price. $129 is more inline with reality. $99 would be a great number and one that will grow Desktop X Pro to its highest level. For $129 or $99 I would sign a non commercial clause, but feel you are shortchanging everyone and yourselves at $499 price