It would be really cool if...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sador

Well-known member
I would suspect the person asking is still a student... You remember those days, don't you? If everyone just did what they liked to do we wouldn't need money at all. :)

Plus most big software makers offer big discounts to students.
Well to be fair, I'm also a student and I've also bought a vB license. I'll probably buy a license here too, just because it's great software. But it does take a bit of trouble with prices of >200 dollar, because to me, that's still a lot of money. So I can get the whole 'please don't make it too expansive' thing some people tend to have, because not everybody is making thousands of dollars each month with their website so they can easily afford it.
 

Alfa1

Well-known member
Somewhere between $130 and $175 seems a logical price. vbulletin once costed $130. Its 195 now. IPB is $150. XF is a new product that needs more development. If it would have a comparable feature set to vb and IPB, then I would price it slightly higher.
 

Dean

Well-known member
The software will be very very new to the market, and initially only have the core functions. I don't see how it could be priced higher than either ipb or vb and garner popularity.

The business plan will be interesting to see when they let us know what it is.
 

Alfa1

Well-known member
Maybe I wasnt clear in how I worded it. XF currently has less features than vb and IPB and therefore I would price XF below vb. And I read that an early adopters discount is going to be applied.
Once XF has a similar feature set as IPB and vb, it I would set the price slightly higher than the others.
 

Forsaken

Well-known member
Maybe I wasnt clear in how I worded it. XF currently has less features than vb and IPB and therefore I would price XF below vb. And I read that an early adopters discount is going to be applied.
Once XF has a similar feature set as IPB and vb, it I would set the price slightly higher than the others.
Less features, however I am thinking that XF will be slightly more extensible then either option.

XF is already being coded with semantics, usability, accessibility and scalability in mind.

It has already adopted much of the HTML5 spec (The logical portions that are unlikely to change), the AJAX degrades much more gracefully then what is offered by other platforms, and the design has so far proven to be laid out in a way that would be easy to embrace by beginner members, and veterans alike.

The few things that are missing, that aren't -major-, can be done either by integrating to a 3rd party solution, awaiting for a temporary mod, or waiting until Mike and Kier add it either as an add-on or as a feature, all of which are likely to be much more feature-rich then the competitions solutions.

While I'd like to see pricing as low as possible, I would be more then willing to pay a higher price just for the promise it shows.
 

Brandon_R

Guest
Less features doesn't mean less value. It currently has extensive semantics, usable, accessible visual template and a scalable framework (from what i hear), which features can be built upon. I'd rather have a system than an implementation, that way it is easy to extend which is another feature of this software - extendability.
 

Private_Ale

Member
Here's my view with free stuff.

When you use something free, run by volunteers, there is basically no warranty. You really have no ground to complain when something goes wrong. Believe it or not this happens a lot with free softwares.

When you purchase something, it gives you grounds to complain to your hearts content. You are paying for it and it better work darn well. It also pretty much guarantees that they must support your problems as long as you are a valid customer.

I could very easily use CentOS on my server. It's free and binary compatible to Redhat Enterprise Linux. However when stuff breaks, I cannot complain the the CentOS team. I could seek support, but they do not have any obligation to help me, they can say 'tough luck'. It has happened to others. I happily run RHEL on my server, yes it costs money, but it gives me the piece of mind that should a problem arise, I have a bunch of neckbeards that I can yell at. Bonus points include that RHEL uses part of the money to help fund FOSS.

I love open source software, however you must remember :
Just because something is open source does not mean that it is free. It's free as in freedom, not free as in beer.

tl;dr: If you're serious about your project, it's well worth the price. :)
 

Quillz

Well-known member
I do not think that is really fair to anyone. There is a lot of free software that is fantastic, discounting something that is free is silly just because it is free. Thats like judging someone on the color of their fur!
I agree, there is nothing wrong with free software. phpBB might have a slow development cycle, but it's still wildly popular across the Internet. And, of course, there are much bigger free and open source projects like Linux...
 

Jason

Well-known member
Umm... no... if it truly is "open source" then it is free... "Viewable Source" (like XF and VB are not free).
No, "open source" has nothing to do with whether the software is free (as in, you don't have to pay for it) or not. There are other reasons one could argue that software, such as XenForo, are not open source, but the fact it costs money is not one of those reasons.

I contribute to a few open source projects, and usually favor open source software when making choices on what software to run, but I'll also gladly donate to, or purchase licenses of, quality projects. If what we have here now is any indication of what's to come, I fully expect to be purchasing a XenForo license in the future.
 

Quillz

Well-known member
Umm... no... if it truly is "open source" then it is free... "Viewable Source" (like XF and VB are not free).
Not necessarily. Open source software such as Linux can be packaged and sold commercially, such is the case with Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for example. Open source really means that the source code can't be patented, basically. While Red Hat Enterprise Linux is sold commercially, any changes made to the kernel must still be made available to everyone.

But on the other hand, what companies such as Red Hat and Novell really do is sell support. That's why you can still get Fedora and openSUSE completely free, because they are basically the open source products with no support at all.
 

BirdOPrey5

Well-known member
No, "open source" has nothing to do with whether the software is free (as in, you don't have to pay for it) or not. There are other reasons one could argue that software, such as XenForo, are not open source, but the fact it costs money is not one of those reasons.

I contribute to a few open source projects, and usually favor open source software when making choices on what software to run, but I'll also gladly donate to, or purchase licenses of, quality projects. If what we have here now is any indication of what's to come, I fully expect to be purchasing a XenForo license in the future.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
Open Source
1) The program MUST be free
2) The source code MUST be free

Neither of these will be true for Xenforo.
 
F

Floris

Guest
I think the suggestion has been made and the counter arguments are shared too. But since XF will not become open source, and is already visible source - and planned to be sold under commercially license; I think this topic has run its course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top