Excellent suggestion...

I already sent my comments to LogSat via email.

Alan has the right idea.

I have no problem with the annual maintenance contract. This is how I market my proprietary e-commerce software package and this is also how I normally purchase my software whenever it is available. Unfortunately when I purchased SF in May 2003 there was never any mention of it being an option. The only thing I recall concerning upgrading was in an email from Roberto in April just before I purchased SF and in the email it stated

“The only difference between the licensed and eval versions are version indicators in the program itself. When registering it, you will be able to download at your leisure any registered builds we release, and yes, you will have to install the new EXEs to replace the eval ones.”

This statement led me to believe that upgrades were part of the package. This is what caused me to get upset over the new cost. Because of this I did not expect to have to spend more $$$ on SF.

Being a software developer myself I understand the need to increase prices when significant additions are added to a product. Because of this I feel paying the $120 maintenance contract on the anniversary of my purchase is fair.

g

So how do we obtain a copy of this new version?

V

Cut the price in 1/2 for all current users ($100) that have been with you through the long beta cycle.

New owners of 6 months or less... free upgrade

Make absolutely clear to everyone that the software now runs on a 1 year maintenance plan and to expect to pay for the next cycle regardless of version.

This gives everyone time to get used to the idea and prepare/justify software budgets.... a really big deal in these economic times.

If you are using the annual Software Maintenance agreement model where users get one year of free upgrades, it would make sense that all users that bought the older version within the last 365 days should be entitled to the 2.0 release and all future releases up to their 1 yr aniversary.  And from there pay a blanket fee annually to maintain their support and free upgrades.  $120 would seems fair and reasonable to me.

However the new $200 "upgrade" seems to be icing on the cake from anyone who had purchased the product within the last year.  Other proprietary software companies that I deal with who use a similar Maintenance model provide new versions (even 1.x to 2.x) free as part of their Software Agreement as long as that customer's annual maintenance was in effect.  If you are going with the Maint contract model, then get rid of the "upgrade" fee model.  It should be one or the other, but not both.

As many users were doing a considerable amount of bug testing in thier own live environments.  I think that there are quite a few loyal users that feel they had a unique relationship with this product's development who now feel slighty alienated by this new fee and subscription stucture suddenly dropped on them wiithout warning.  I am sure some would have appreciated it if you had announced your intention earlier.  Likewise from reading other posts here in the forum it sounds like some users are going to start looking at other options too.  That is certainly their choice, whereas some of us will still continue to use the product.

For me $120/year is fair and I would certainly be willing to support an annual agreement, but it would only seem fair to do so after the initial year from the original purchase date has lasped and to do away with this idea of a "upgrade" fee.  

My recommendation:
-Get rid of the idea of an upgrade fee and go directly into the Maint Contract model.
-The 2.x release is free to all licensed users who bought within the last 365 days. 
-Licensed users who bought before that should be able to start a new $120 1 year maint contract immediately upon payment and get the 2.x release with it.
-Unlicensed beta and trial users pay the full retail cost.

Thanks for all your hard work Roberto.  I think everyone agrees a fair and equitable fee structure is beneficial for all.

Roberto,
While there is no doubt that SF is a great product and is getting better as time goes by. Your support of SF has been excellent.

The problem I have with the pricing issue is I have not even had the product for a year and have spent a good part of that year testing SF through all of the builds/betas until a good stable version came out with the last version change 1.2. which to me seemed more like a bug fix than a major upgrade..

While $200 is not much for the upgrade by it self, I have to consider that in order to get good performance out of all versions of SF so far, I also had to put in a high powered server to handle the load.

Please make no mistake, I love SF and would like to keep using it but given that some of the new features are still not completely working the way they should, I may have to look at other options.

g

I just purchased my copy on 11/07/03, and was really waiting for the Bayesian and the ability to block attachments.  As is, the software requires much manual input.  It can't differentiate between spams and legitimate e-mails without your own set of keywords, and even then it doesn’t work all that well.  If  you go and do a search on keyword “new version” on the forum, you see I’ve been asking for the version with these new feature back in November.  I can’t justify hitting up my manager for another $200 for a good, but incomplete product.  I think I should I receive this new version free of charge, it has even been 6 months yet.

V

I have been a registed user for quite some time and did not hesitate to pay the $200 for this upgrade.  Compared to all my other network software SPAMFILTER ISP is LOW COST.  The support on this forum is EXCELLENT and the folks here know their stuff! 

With that said, I probably would be annoyed if I just purchased the product and then had to pay to upgrade...

Thanks for all your hard work!  My 100+ users really appreciate the decrease in spam!  (that is the whole point!)

Erik!