DesktopX Pro Pricing Discussion

I don't know. Something in me tells me that somebody who won't pay 499$ for a program won't pay 129$ either.  Or maybe I'm just wrong.
It seems to me that it will be difficult to enforce if somebody sells the DX objects he makes or not.

But in theory, it's a good idea, I'm just not sure how it would translate in reality...

Personally, I don't see a point in having a Desktop Pro with limited marketing use.



For me, 499 is just fine and I would pay it particularly when I get things going for myself. Marketing agencies will want to make and disturbed it without having users download and buy DX. I personally experienced this with a few people who did not want to put another program on their computer.

So DX Pro stand alone is the way to go and you can do what ever you want once you have it. I guess... well, maybe someone would want to use it for the reasons above.

I could make my own Rainy with all the features and give it to someone, not worrying about if they have DX or not.

Hmmm... I just feel that if I like the proggram so much I would just tell them, get DX and us the thing.


I guess it is a good idea to have a 129 otpion. Don't know how you will hold people accountable for not using it for profit but I guess it is cool.

Go for it.

DX regualr: 20
Object Desktop: 50
DX Pro Home Edition: 129
DX Pro Plus: 499
DX Enterprise: $$$$$

I guess the Home Edition won't have the advantages of the Pro Plus. Home Edition would be like just making a regular object in DX except you can export it as a stand alone.


Still don't know how you would hold people accountable but at least they won't have the regular existing Pro otpion except to have it be stand alone.

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.

Well since I've read your posts explaining exactly what DX Pro can do, I want it. I can tell you right now that I would pay the $129 in a heartbeat. The $500 package, while priced just fine for what it does, I just cannot justify the expense for myself. But $129 I could, I think, if the bf doesn't find out.

See for me I've love this because I'd love to be able to make some exes to run some DX goodies on my other machines here that I haven't bought DX licenses for. I could do that right? Plus I would absolutely love to be able to make some cool objects and send them to my kid relatives, and there is no way in he** I'm gonna try to walk them through installing DX....

what do you mean, Not allowed?

I see people making them and distributing them and later on wondering why Stardock is on their backsides for it.

If there is going to be a 129 version then I think it can not have the same Active X functionality as the 499 version.

In other words it would be no different then a DX object except it can run by itself.


I see your point Frogboy and I guess it would work is people use it the way you do (or people want it for those reasons). I just don't see many people understanding the usage clause. Me, I don't want to get involved with 'can I do that' or 'can I do this'. I'll just get the regular version (like I would Photoshop, Illustrator or Flash and Premiere)


I would suggest e-mailing these people back and find out or poll what they want to do with it and why to see if regular DX does it for them.

If anything, just have an area where people can ask for a lesser version of the 3 DX's and you set them up with the 129 version. In other words, it is not an regular option unless you email Stardock.

Frogboy: hrm. I suppose I am just way out of touch with the average end-user. My reaction to each of your examples is that I either have freeware things like that already, or I can make them myself with existing freeware. I guess it is the "NO WAY my extended family would have been willing to go and download" that I don't figure into the equation.

As always with me, I really have a hard time believing any individual will pay $499 for an app they can save $300 on just by telling a lie when they buy it. I thought that the $499 was at least a good attempt to prevent all the kids outside the reach of Western ISPs and litigation from making the aforementioned 1001Widgets.com site, without relying on policing the use of the software after the sale. I suppose folks like that will probably try and get it without paying for it to begin with, anyway.

Just my thoughts. I don't mean to troll. I thought the $499 was a good price, but admittedly others differ.

better yet, sell the 129 version for a limited time only and see what happens.

The more I think about this the more I don't like it the idea of selling a 129 version, but I'll admit that some people in my family or friends don't want to download and install DX just so they can use the object (even after I showed them all the cool stuffus (this was before Icon X))

Just sell it for a limited time only (as stand alone) or/and have it available for Object Desktop costumers only afterward.


I just thought of something...

Use Precision Tree software to find out what percentages and possibilities can come out of these choices. (add on to Excel)

I learned that from my Manegment Decision making course...

It could help.

Well what we'll probably do is this:

We'll send out a WinCustomize Magazine and Stardock Magazine letting people know of the $129 version ($99 upgrade from Object Desktop). If sales aren't sufficient, we'll discontinue that and stick with only the $499 version.

All of Bakerstreet's points are valid IMO. It's purely a matter of which direction makes the most business sense. If having a $129 version allows 100 to 200 copies a month to be sold, it's probably worth having it. On the other hand, if it only sells 5 to 10 copies per month, then it's not worth it and better to focus on the $499 version that we know developers will pay based on our previous experience in selling these kinds of things.

It's all a guess about what size the power user market is these days.

I think that Bakerstreet is right and that a so called power-user may actually become a power-abuser if a $130 version is generated. I understand that Stardock is a company that believes more in its custumers than its profit margin, and they should be commended for it, but I think this will only lead to an ill-fated end for everyone.

Just one more guy's opinion here. I'm a Developer for an international franchisor. I write the software that we sell to many of the franchisees who use it to run their day-to-day operations. It would be easy for me to justify spending $499 of the company's money for the ability to say, use DX Pro to create an interactive tutorial for the software we sell. Using DX Pro, I could create the tutorial and have it interact with my program and my users because of DXScript. And the ability to include it all in an EXE for our users to run is simple and smart. Sure, I could do this with tons of other DEMO APP and TUTORIAL creators, but with DX Pro I get so much more (like alphablending and vb scripting).

At home, I'm a Object Desktop subscriber and a DX fan for my home machine. I also enjoy creating unique objects to share with other users on wincustomize. Would I personally pay $499 for DX Pro - no, for I don't need it for commercial development. Is it worth $129 for me (again, personally)? No, not when I think about my OD subscription. I think the idea of $55 to $75 for non-commercial OD subscribers is fair. A lot of us hard-working people don't have that much cash to through around for software when it comes to home use. My OD subscription is already a luxury for me, as it is for most home users I'm sure. I'd have to spread a-hell-of-a-lot of joy creating .EXE's at home to make DX Pro worth anything more than $75 more for me, a home user and OD subscriber.

I hope this reads as well as it does in my mind. Thanks for listeni-- err, reading.

It reads fine. The problem is most people wouldn't be as honest as you. Instead of paying $499 for it at work, they'd go home and pay the lower price and take it to work with them the next day.

Frogboy has doubtlessly done the math and decided that he can live with the seepage at the price he has decided to go with. It is pretty admirable, actually. Other developers would stick to the $499 and charge innocent folks for the loss to warez and commercial abuse. When Adobe blames their high price on piracy, that is what they are doing, making you pay for the software other people steal.

Kudos to stardock for not following suit. I just hope all the people who decide they didn't really need pro-level DesktopX don't come back and blame their lack of foresight on them.

I totally agree with BakerStreet........ 2 prices is asking for abuse. But you know that Brad, and again I agree with BS.... kudos to Stardock for even considering this.  

btw...... if you want to boost sales, start a rumor that it's ported from the Mac.

I do agree with your points. They are valid.

What we'll do is send out emails to our users and see how many people purchse it. If the number is really low, which it might be, then we'll just discontinue it as the "seepage" as you put it, a real concern, might be greater than it's worth.

But keep in mind, piracy is much the same way. Companies tend to be pretty honest though about these kinds of things in our experience. We've had lots of sales of DirectSkin that are $9000 to $15000 when they could have probably gotten away with the $750 developer license and we would have never known.

I understand what bakerstreet is saying here, however what is not being said is that if a developer shells out the $499 for the DXPro he can in turn sell 2 or 3 executables and make back the $499 price tag, no problem. Me as the home user with no intent to sell and may only need to make myself or family a few of these executables, to run them on the families computers without the need of DX being on them is a plus, and for this plus it is to me worth the $129 or $99 (these machines are just to old to put to much more on them). Even if I only used it a few times it would be worth it at that price but not at the $499. If the thought here is to get a lot of sales for this product than both price ranges is great, and covers both the commercial Developer and home power and casual users. There are too many die hard C++ developers out there for them to even consider DXPro. So in all honesty I think that the home user, super user and occasional user are going to be the best bet for the purchase of DXPro. The Big one at $15,000 is going to be thought about for a long time and a few might buy it. Now I'll get off my soap box and let you guys get back to the matter at hand. Thanks for Listening.

Hum, since this topic is there at two places, I guess you'll to excuse my copy-pasting:

 

I don't know. I've been doing some thinking about this.I can't see paying 499 for a corporate use, and neither can I see paying 129 for home use.  Let me explain.   

With the Pro version, you can only make EXE objects, not themes.  One could not go after companies and sell them corporate branded desktops, you'd need the Enterprise version for that, and that well is just way too much up there in the price list.  To hope getting your money back from the 499$ expense, you'd have to basically sell a whole lot of 3 to 4$ clocks and desktop calendars... The price of DX Pro has been compared to the price of Flash. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't compare. I can justify the expense of Flash in a heartbeat. I pay it back in just one single cotract, which I could only hope to do with DX Pro if I could see a whole desktop suite to a company, which I can't.  No, to me, I can't see the 499$ corporate version being worth the risk for a huge loss.  

As for a 129$ home version, again, I think it's a lot of money for just being able to make EXE's and send widgets to friends and families. Personnaly, I don't spend 100$ per month in games. I don't even spend that per year.  I think Object Desktop is well worth it for 50$, no doubt about that. But if I balance that with 129$ for just turning an object into an EXE? No, can't see it either. But I'm sure there are companies ready to buy the 499$ version, I just can't think of any I know. As there probably will be a few people ready to buy the 129$ home version. BUt how many?  

I guess time will tell.

[Message Edited]

Just a possible idea...

Make the EXEs exported from 129$ version tell that it was made from a non-commerical edition ONCE, so people cannot sell the non-commecial created exes and get away with it.

What exactly prevents a 129 buyer from commercial distribution of the product [that's allowed in the 499 one]?

Sounds like a 'semi-legit' way to cheat, short of the warez route...

What exactly prevents a 129 buyer from commercial distribution of the product [that's allowed in the 499 one]?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing as far as I read.

The restrictions on the Home Version seam to 'total' such that if the person 'thinks' they will just give widgets away on a website they will be violating the agreement.

I just hope all the people who decide they didn't really need pro-level DesktopX don't come back and blame their lack of foresight on them.

Even as I read the comments on here and on the news story I can see people who say they will buy the 129 version coming back and feeling that they can't justify the cost and BLAMING the company for hoodwinking them into buying it.

Making a couple of widgets for family members? Friends?

==================
Sure not having to download and install DX is a plus, BUT I think end the end it will just be of little consequence to those who really want to use the widgets. As I have said before, everyone (9 out of 10) are amazed at what DX looks like and what can be done with it. The line of downloading/installing DX is not that thick (I'll admit its there but come on).



In the end, the 129 version being used by home power users doesn't add up to me. If I really understand what DX can do, even as a power user, I would just get the 499 version so I can do whatever I want with it.

paxx has a point about Flash, but I believe in a few years the same can be said for DX Pro; One contract can pay for the whole program.


I think coming up with a marketing solution for this would be better for DX then just having the new option of buying the 129 version (DX Pro Home).



E-mailing to find out who wants it is a good idea. In the end, I think if it is well liked, it should only be available for Object Desktop customers (people who understand DX and the whole skinning thing) and the few users who ask for it specifically.

Hey, don't forget the schools!! make an educational version too.

Without revealing anything, I can already say that we have well into the 5 digit range of deals selling stand alone DX applications to corporations in the works.

Let me give you one generic example: A website might want to have a downloadable widget that incorporates a flash movie promoting their stuff in a cool way that will stay on a user's desktop.

Another company might want to simply have a nice analog clock that is branded.

There are many uses for DesktopX Pro for commercial use. One just has to give the issue some thought. And if they don't, that's okay too because that leaves the field more open to us.

I was just thinking (Always stings) about a the different versions. Would it be possible to have the $129 "Pro" version limit the size of executable that it will produce? This would limit what one could do with it to just making smaller "Components", like a fish to swim on moms desktop.
Then have the $499 "Developer" version that would provide the capability and licensing for full and unlimited development. That way an enthusiast has a place to start with the potential to step up should his skills or desire develop. I don't know....I can just see A LOT of different directions a product like this could go now and over the coming years.

I really don't understand the problem some people have believe that you could easily recoup the $499 for the commercial license. It is either short-sighted or bad-tempered.

Have you guys ever bought, say, branded pens, or baseball hats for a company? My lab is littered with pens, notepads, pencil holders, magnetic paper holders, etc., that people paid to just give away so that I would see their 'brand'.

Add to that the fact that we as skinners know that we can make money just selling branded skins. No application, just an themed skin... a bit of scripting and images. Now think of the company that could buy... *once*... a branded analog clock and let people download it *indefinitely*. Unlike pens and baseball hats they won't run out, and the will be much more visible to the person that uses it. They can even contain hard-coded links right back to the commercial site.

You don't think that even a reasonably small company wouldn't shell out $100 for such a thing? How long would $100 worth of branded baseball hats last before you had to reorder, a week? These could be distributed as freebies on hand-out CD-ROMs, bundled with software or games, whatever.

Give all this a rest. If you can't see how this could make someone $499, then you have no business with it and no business poo-pooing it. The app is there, buy it or not, review it if you like, but this conversation amounts to the usual "Man [whatever app] just isn't worth what Stardock is charging]. and regulars here usually take a dimmer view of such. Why emulate it?