Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?
On Sep 20, 8:59 pm, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@nnowslpianmk.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:54:48 -0700, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
Lew wrote:
Require payment of the full license fee to receive the software a=
t
Owen Jacobson wrote:
That's extremely poor marketing.
And yet it's how almost all products are sold. Why not software?
....
This indicates to me that the burden of proof is on one who asserts tha=
t
full payment first is "extremely poor marketing". /Au contraire/, it=
appears to me to be the standard, and "free sample first" the exception=
..
....
I can't speak for Owen, but I might be willing to equivocate on the use o=
f
the word "extremely". But other than that, I find it patently obvious =
that forcing your potential customers to pay money for the product before=
they are able to judge for themselves whether the product is worth paying=
for most certainly is "poor marketing".
You've made my point for me, so I won't belabour it, but I thought I'd
speak to my use of "extremely". The consumer software market has been
trained, over the last ten years or so, to expect a free trial of some
kind, whether via limited features, nag screens, or time-limited
editions. In that context, opting not to provide a free trial will
simply cause potential customers to go somewhere else, and if they
can't, will at the very least leave a (possibly unjustified) poor
taste in their mouth.
-o