AstroPlanner has always been shareware. You can download it, try it, and if you like it, pay to register. You can also continue using it without paying if you are not troubled by the restrictions placed on unregistered (unpaid) users.
In V1.x the restrictions were:
- Just a few catalogues (Bright Star, Messier and NGC).
- A full user manual, but with crummy pictures (that probably prompted some of you to have your eyes checked).
- Several features that caused a “nag” message to appear.
- Several features that were completely disabled (e.g. exporting, importing, scripts, etc.).
- Theoretically, minimal user support until you register.
There are a few problems with this approach:
- Users get irritated by “nag” messages every time they use a feature.
- It’s not possible to try out any disabled features (e.g. Astromist export, scripting) without registering.
- It’s difficult (for me) to tell if a user is registered or not, in order to give support.
- Some features that were not disabled were eating into my registrations (e.g. the ability to download a plethora of user plans).
With the above in mind, and after a lot of thinking, I have decided to continue with the the shareware (try before you buy) approach, but will be putting the following restrictions into the unregistered version:
- Just a few catalogues (Bright Star, Messier and NGC). As before. Reasoning: Apart from anything else, I don’t want my server brought to it’s knees as gigabytes of data are downloaded. The Catalogue Manager will show all possible catalogues, but they won’t be downloadable. I perceive the catalogue collection to be a “strategic asset”. Note also that if you previously registered V1.x, the additional catalogues won’t work in V2 onwards, unless you have a valid serial number.
- Only user-contributed plans containing objects from the 3 catalogues will be downloadable. Reasoning: Many unregistered users of V1.x have downloaded user-contributed plans and have not even needed additional catalogues to use AstroPlanner.
- No user-contibuted plan uploads will be possible. Reasoning: This restriction is largely because I plan to be able to track the author of a plan, so that only he/she can change it, delete it, etc.
- Not able to open/convert any plan documents created in V1.x. Not able to load text-based plans, or import any kind of document. Reasoning: Similar to the user-contributed plan reasoning.
- Scripting will now be open to all, but uploading scripts will be for registered users only. Reasoning: Again, because I plan to be able to track the author of a script, so that only he/she can change it, delete it, etc.
- No reference manual or scripting manual (perhaps just the table of
contents as a carrot). Just a tutorial manual (somewhat more
substantial than the current chapter) to give potential users a good
feel for what the app can do for them. Reasoning: A good user manual, and/or help system is another “strategic asset” in my mind. A lot of effort has to be put into it. - Occasional “nag” message when quitting. Reasoning: Some folk might forget that they are using unregistered software :^)
- User support through a web browser-based support page, or via the application itself. Reasoning: I can then tell who is and isn’t registered, and deny support where necessary. In practice, I can’t stop unregistered folk from posting questions on the Yahoo group. That’s OK, but I might be less flexible about answering such posts in the future. I’ll probably post something about user support in the near future, since it’s also a “strategic asset”…
Thoughts? Am I being too paranoid? Too lenient?
Richard Hendrix | 12-Jan-08 at 7:35 pm | Permalink
Hi Paul,
Sounds good. Doesn’t sound paranoid just a business man trying re-coup his investment.
Maybe add a UNREGISTER USER name to printed plans.
richard
Michael Morris | 13-Jan-08 at 10:44 pm | Permalink
This all sounds reasonable and sensible to me. However, I do have one comment. Astroplanner is not the easiest (nor the hardest) piece of software to master. I would think very carefully about restricting access to help files. There is a danger that you could shoot yourself in the foot by making a complex piece of software harder to learn because of the lack of access to full help files. Without being able to understanding the full capabilities of this fantastic software, you could actually reduce the rate of registrations. Think of your help files as adverts.
admin | 14-Jan-08 at 7:21 am | Permalink
@Michael
Point taken. However, a tutorial that leads a new user through, say, 80% of the capabilities of the app would go a long way towards selling it. I wish other apps would have such a document available. MS Office is almost unusable without paying extra for third-party books and guides. The built-in help is execrable.
Chris Todd | 27-Jan-08 at 10:34 am | Permalink
Paul, I agree with Michael on the docs – there’s so much you can do with AP, its feature list is a huge asset. Perhaps create a teaser page in the tutorial that lists all the other things you can do, without showing them how to do it. Perhaps that would be a good enticement to buy.
As for the support point being a strategic asset, I couldn’t agree more! YOU are probably AP’s greatest asset, and your responsiveness on the Yahoo group is one of the reasons I bought AP. But you’re not an unlimited resource, so how to balance that? You’ve also managed to build a supportive community on the AP Yahoo group, and you wouldn’t want to lose that. But perhaps you could consider having a dedicated tech support email or website that is only given out to registered users, and let the community handle more of the questions on the Yahoo group. This would be completely consistent with the way many other companies do things, so I don’t think users would get too riled about it. Anyway, it’s an idea you could try, and if it doesn’t work out, simply go back to the old way of doing things.
Keep up the good work, though, AP 2.0 is looking great; I can’t wait!
admin | 27-Jan-08 at 10:54 am | Permalink
@Chris
I have thought about the tech support conundrum. One possibility is to have a support web page where registered users can get “instant” support (i.e. as fast a turn-around as I can supply, based on the facts that I have to eat, sleep, shower, etc. occasionally). Other support requests, by means of the Yahoo group or private e-mail will have, say, a 24-hour “waiting period”. If no-one has provided an answer, I will then pipe up where necessary.
However, this is a slippery slope, and I have often had registrations based on the immediacy of my replies to questions.
MIchael Morris | 30-Jan-08 at 11:55 am | Permalink
I agree with Chris Todd’s idea about ‘teaser’ pages. An alternative might be to have full help files but restricted features. For instance, restricting the number of user observation records, turning off the ability for users to add further images to their observations after 60 days, increasing delays on Goto commands etc. etc.
Dan Kuchta | 17-May-08 at 8:41 am | Permalink
I agree that you need to do what you can to discourage people from using Astroplanner long term without registering. Its an extraordinary piece of software and, in my opinion underpriced at $25! Everyone should be able to buy at that price.
Having said that, I’m not sure if restricting the user manual is a good idea. I downloaded the shareware version for evaluation and the first thing I found what that it was jam packed with tons of desirable features, but was quite complex and hard to understand what it could really do. I went right to the manual.
When I did, I had a number of those “delight” moments when you realize, “Wow, I didn’t know it could do that!” or “Wow, so that’s what that feature does, cool!” In addition, it was obvious that the manual was well written and VERY useful – something you don’t often find in a $25 application.
These were things that convinced me to buy. Without the manual, I may have been overwhelmed by not-fully-understood features, and may have come to the conclusion that it was too complicated.
I understand that the documentation takes a lot of effort and as such its a valuable asset. But, I think it would be better to place additional restrictions elsewhere. I expect to see limitations in the software for something I get for free, but the manual should be there to clearly explain everything I’m missing.
I do a LOT of purchasing of hardware and software on the web. If its not obvious to me whether I want to purchase or not, the first thing I look for is a manual to download. It usually gives me all the details I need to make my decision. I think that limiting access to this would indeed be shooting yourself in the foot.