Thoughts on the upcoming VV5

Back to post

Comments

p@mast3rs wrote on 3/11/2004, 5:09 PM
"So it does work to your benefit because you cannot discount the years you have already been using it (which the new user didn’t get the benefit of) Does it make sense now?

~jr"

No it doesnt and heres why. Because of mine and others loyal business, the new user pays less and gets the same. The simple solution, charge new users more. Allow the new users to fund more of the research, development, and innovation.

Let me give you an example of how this relates to what I am saying.

I am a booster for University of Florida. Every year, I donate money to our schools fund. In return, I receive season football tickets. Now, every year, I am locked in to doanting the same funds. If I stop, I dont receive my football tickets. Now, the next year, new boosters come on board and donate the same amount. The get the same tickets generally in the same location. However, each season, my seats get better as long as I keep donating. So they reward boosters who donate on a consistent basis. Now, if a new booster wants better seats, he can pay more to receive the same or better seats than I.

How does this relate? Simple. Old Boosters are long time Vegas customers. New users are new users. Old boosters are rewarded for contributing more with better seats. Old users should be rewarded with more functionality. New users that wish to have the same seats (same fucntionality) need to pay same to get the same.

Why should a new user receive the same functionality by paying less? I keep reading that we pay for all this service and all we pay for is a license to use the software. So while I might have received more "service" than a new user, why should I penalized because I chose to support a company before a new user?

More importantly, can someone explain why a company values a new user/purchase more than they do a current/previous customer? $$$$, thats the bottom line. They stand to make more off new sales than they do old sales.

Do I think I am going to change the way companies do business? Of course not. But just because something isnt practiced doesnt mean its not right. But I do know that my customers are happy that I value them and respect the amount of business they give to me.

Someone posted above what happens when the market becomes saturated. Isnt it already? Thats the price companies pay for market domination. Adobe has long disregarded their customers concerns and business and now its finally catching up with them since they have serious competitors in their markets.
MyST wrote on 3/11/2004, 6:38 PM
"But I do know that my customers are happy that I value them and respect the amount of business they give to me."

That's the difference. You can't compare your business with an international-sized business.
How many board members do you have to check with before you give Bob or Mary a discount?
If you knew that raising your prices was going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost sales because JoeBlow bought Brand X for $50 cheaper, would you raise them?
I'm sorry, but I can't even see how YOU could operate a business like that for very long. People shop around for the best price nowadays. If you quote them anything more than your best price, you're taking a HUGE gamble they're going to go elsewhere. Once they go elsewhere and get satisfactory results, you've lost them. If you quote them your best price the first time around, how can you possibly keep lowering your prices everytime, and still make money?
Your idea of having the new user pay more to make up for discounts offered to the existing user base is, to me, suicidal.
Selling price= the ideal price that will bring in the most revenue. In other words, what's the most we can charge for this product without losing potential sales? What's the most we can charge current users and still have them WANT to upgrade?
Guess what...there's a heck of alot of current users who WANT to upgrade.

M
ibliss wrote on 3/11/2004, 7:25 PM
The solution Acidsex is for you not to upgrade to V5 and wait for V6 - that way you'll be getting a far better value upgrade, as you'll being paying less than the V4 users amonst us who want to earn more money with a better product in the mean time. No, hang on a second, there's a flaw in this argument....

Now, please stop being such an
Cheno wrote on 3/11/2004, 9:16 PM
Acidsex... dude.. chill out... don't get your panties in a bundle just yet.. Let Sony make the pricing decision.. if it's too high for you then it's too high. They're not out to please everyone and those that continue to bitch and moan about the pricing before it's even been listed, are most likely always going to be disappointed because they expect something for nothing most times.

If you're going to just keep beating the same dead horse, do it somewhere else... or get productive, make a few hundred bucks with Vegas and set it aside for the upgrade. I think most of us are tired of the schtick.

Mike
eplamondon wrote on 3/11/2004, 9:33 PM
I am in awe that this thread has lasted as long as it has.
Of course, here I am contributing.

One post after another feeding this dude. However, I must admit, in a way it is entertaining.

I picture Mr. Acidex sitting around in his underwear amidst empty bottles of Yoohoo! , talking to himself as he replies to all these posts, mumbling how everyone else on this board are so unbelievably off their rocker.

I do have to agree with the other poster above suggesting that he simply not upgrade to the next version, and then do so down the road when he figures new users have finally paid as much as he has...

Let's all agree to disagree with our pal, and let this post die it's overdue death


GaryKleiner wrote on 3/11/2004, 10:37 PM
>Let's all agree to disagree with our pal, and let this post die it's overdue death<

Quit now?!
Only 19 more to go 'till we hit 100 posts :-0

Gary
busterkeaton wrote on 3/11/2004, 11:54 PM
18
Skevos_Mavros wrote on 3/12/2004, 4:39 AM
Seventeen to go...

Once upon a time this thread, and acidsex's "argument", would have got me hopping mad, but not anymore.

What astonishes me about this thread is not it's length, but that I've seen it so many times before on so many software boards/email lists. Over and over again. I think it's a law of the internet or something - "Wherever there is a discussion of upgrade price, so there shalt be someone who does not understand the concepts of averageing and unit cost, and lo, that person shall insist that they are right and all else are blind..."

Acidsex, if you're going to add up all the money you've spent on Vegas versions, then to be fair you have to average them out over the number of versions of Vegas you've bought. Think about it - otherwise you're assigning zero worth to all the versions you've had and putting all the cost on the moment that you and a new user purchase Vegas5. This makes no sense at all, and if you can't see it then I can't help you.

As for this comment:

* Because of
* mine and others loyal business, the new
* user pays less and gets the same.

Over and over you say this, throughout this thread. Read the next paragraph slowly:

The new user doesn't pay less. They pay more. No, don't roll your eyes, don't sigh. I mean it. The new user pays more. Not only will they pay more for v5 than you do, but over all , averaged out over the life of their Vegas-purchasing-experience, they pay still more (others have done the math above, reread them).

Can you really not see this? Or are you just pretending to be stubborn in order to create the longest thread this month? The odd thing is you then said:

* The
* simple solution, charge new users more.
* Allow the new users to fund more of the
* research, development, and innovation.

This is what everyone else is saying - and what SoFo/Sony have always done. It's the system you seem not to like, yet here you advocate it. Odd. ANd this:

* So while I might have received more
* "service" than a new user, why should
* I penalized because I chose to support
* a company before a new user?

You didn't "choose to support a company", you bought a version of a piece of software because you thought it would be useful/fun/have utility for you. You got what you paid for and as an added reward for paying full price the first time, future versions are at a discount. Life is good.

Okay guys, let's go for one hundred posts! :-)



Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com
Jay Gladwell wrote on 3/12/2004, 4:47 AM
Acidsex said, "Every year, I donate money to our schools fund. In return, I receive season football tickets. Now, every year, I am locked in to doanting the same funds. If I stop, I dont receive my football tickets. Now, the next year, new boosters come on board and donate the same amount. The get the same tickets generally in the same location. However, each season, my seats get better as long as I keep donating. So they reward boosters who donate on a consistent basis. Now, if a new booster wants better seats, he can pay more to receive the same or better seats than I."

As a disgruntled consumer, I can understand his position based on the above comparison. It's interesting that no one has responded to his latest attempt to explain his thoughts in a way that, to me, seems fairly clear.

From where I'm standing, I can see his point: Life would be great if things were more equitable (but they aren't). Too, I can understand everyone else's point: This is the way life is and there's little we can do about it.

That, more than anything, is what I find so disappointing. We, as the "general masses," have become so indoctrinated that we have acquiesced, without question, to the "relative few" who pull our strings.

Maybe that's what he's really trying to say.

J--
JohnnyRoy wrote on 3/12/2004, 5:02 AM
> if you're going to add up all the money you've spent on Vegas versions, then to be fair you have to average them out over the number of versions of Vegas you've bought.

That was my argument but he didn’t see it that way. :(

WAIT! I have an idea!!!

ACIDSEX FOR PRESIDENT

Yea, if we vote acidsex for president, then the longer I stay with the same credit card company the lower my interest rate would be, and the longer I stay with the same cell phone company, the cheaper my phone bill would be, and the longer I stay with the same car company, the cheaper my new cars would be, because I would be rewarded for my customer loyalty. Wouldn’t it be great if the world really did work this way?

You got my vote! ;-) (...and you realize this post is all in fun)

~jr
pb wrote on 3/12/2004, 5:27 AM
Wow, what a lot of posts. I am amazed that some of you are quibbling over a couple of hundred bucks! If the new version has features which will speed up your work flow or expand your capability it is money well spent and you will recoup your investment in a few hours. I don't know what editing rates in your various areas are but up here 500 CAD per day for a professional editor (experienced with some sort of accreditation) with an NLE running on a modern box is low end. 500 CAD = 375 USD, more than enough to cover the upgrade. If the upgrade saves you time you will do more work and quickly generate the 2 or 3 hundred you'll need to buy DVD-A 2.

Peter
PeterWright wrote on 3/12/2004, 6:31 AM
Well said Marquat - how well off we are.

My life would be so different without companies like Microsoft and Sonic Foundry.

It has cost me a pittance to become as professional as my abilities allow.


Thank you ball boys, thank you linesmen .....

Miss_Mickey wrote on 3/12/2004, 6:41 AM
Patrick, your "boosters tickets" argument is absolutely absurd. In order to have that example relate to your other arguments, you'd have to total up ALL the donations you've made to date. If you do that, you'll see that the money you've paid to get better seats is FAR FAR more than the new supporters, even if they paid a bonus to get them. This is exactly the opposite of the point you are trying to prove, and in fact is exactly the same argument that all the rest of us are making against your idea.

In other words, you are now arguing on our side of the issue.
p@mast3rs wrote on 3/12/2004, 7:23 AM
"Patrick, your "boosters tickets" argument is absolutely absurd. In order to have that example relate to your other arguments, you'd have to total up ALL the donations you've made to date. If you do that, you'll see that the money you've paid to get better seats is FAR FAR more than the new supporters, even if they paid a bonus to get them. This is exactly the opposite of the point you are trying to prove, and in fact is exactly the same argument that all the rest of us are making against your idea.

In other words, you are now arguing on our side of the issue"


WRONG! Its not the issue of not getting seats as a booster. It is the issue of gettign better seats. Ive paid more, so I get better seats. Same thing with Vegas. Ive paid more, so why should the new user get the same as me?


Someone else posted above the point I am trying make. We have become jsut accepting as a consumer society that we will pay whatever a company asks and that when someone questions "the norm" people are quick to defend such actions. Why? Because you practice business the same way. Is it right? Personally, I think not.

Someone else said that I didnt choose to support Sofo/Sony. Actually, I did choose. I could have taken my business else where and the support they get is sales.

Sadly, I think the point you all have missed from every one of mosts is the issue of loyalty to the people that make you money. Companies no longer go the extra step for thier customers. Companies no longer offer the added perks or lower prices for loyal customers. That is what is wrong with businesses today. That is exactly why people will 90% of the time opt for a lower cost service somewhere else.

Consumers love to be respected and be treated like a king. Once a comapny stops catering to them and the consumers finds someone else can offer the same type of product/service and get the respect/loyalty.

Another poster asked how business can remain in business like that. I have done just fine with the same model. Do I make as much as everyone else? probably not. But I have always have jobs and I am always bringing in money.
jwall wrote on 3/12/2004, 7:28 AM
Don't stop now!!! It's just getting interesting.

What I really don't get is this: Someone who has been using Vegas since it's inception way back has been using it all that time, Right? A new user has only been using the product for a short time. Even if the new user pays $1000 dollars for the product, and the old user has payed out $2000 over ten years, he's used it for ten years. He is paying for his ten years of use. If the company offers another upgrade, and the old user thinks, "I've already paid $2000 dollars to this company for this product...I don't want to pay again," what does that have to do with the price a new user should pay? To me it's clear that if you want all that comes with an upgrade, you need to pay for it.

I think one thing acidsex is saying is he doesn't want to pay for an upgrade if all it does is fix things that should have worked in the previous version. Anyone can understand that....As for his insistance that new users should pay more.....THEY DO!!! (as has been said above many times). If his main point is that instead of paying $1000 for the new product, they should pay $1200, and thereby fund all current users who want to upgrade, that is absurd. Going along with what has been said before, if YOU want the new features, YOU have to pay for them......it's irresponsible to expect new users to pay for the upgrades of old users.

Also, I think there are a number of people here that would make fine presidential candidates........but GRAZIE is at the top of the list.
GaryKleiner wrote on 3/12/2004, 7:41 AM
>I think there are a number of people here that would make fine presidential candidates........but GRAZIE is at the top of the list.<

I'm afraid that Grazie is not a a US citizen.

Gary
winrockpost wrote on 3/12/2004, 7:48 AM
I think acidsex is practicing for a logic class. *



jwall wrote on 3/12/2004, 7:48 AM
Well.....It would be nice to have someone sensible there anyway. I figure since anyone here is a longshot, we might as well make our candidate the biggest longshot of them all (seeing as how the constitution must be rewritten in order for him to be eligible).
p@mast3rs wrote on 3/12/2004, 8:17 AM
Still, no one has addressed a company's loyalty to its customers. Now let me ask this. If business were done this way day in and day out, who would be complaining? More importantly, imagine businesses using my model for years and then todays current practices are introduced. You would be very upset. Now, I ask you, why would you be upset? Because business that was ran the "right" way was changed. Point is, that if you would get upset if my way was changed to today's current practice.

Has anyone read the license agreement from MS for XP? They make no guarrantees to have an activation server available in the future.So what happens after that time comes and you need to reinstall but cant activate?

This is exactly why consumers are getting fed up.
JJKizak wrote on 3/12/2004, 8:19 AM
Business has one perogative; more money must come in than go out or your not in business.

JJK
p@mast3rs wrote on 3/12/2004, 8:22 AM
Or you keep gouging your customers and do not reward their loyalty and you lose business. Look at Adobe. Theye have lost a ton of market share.
p@mast3rs wrote on 3/12/2004, 8:23 AM
Come on, 2 more and we hit 100. I can see the mad suh now to claim the 100th post.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 3/12/2004, 8:25 AM
Patrick, the sad truth is there is no such thing as loyalty on either side of the equation.

J--
Jay Gladwell wrote on 3/12/2004, 8:25 AM
So let's move on!

Okay, this is 100. What do I win, Patrick???

J--