$10 licence - excellent idea to support product development

[RpD]

Uh... $99.95 ...??? A single license is $29.95. Shall I compare other $100 software?

A (very good) mail filter/sorter for $100? Mmm, No... not even 'lifetime' (such as -that- is).... it's too much charge for the purpose, for the software category. For some of us, MWP is a single tool that can be almost duplicated with email client tools and/or add-ons, nowhere near that $100 price. Firetrust does have other products... guess they are not enough revenue stream.

You can't create a 'security product' from a niche, when the general security products, already available and widespread, already cover your niche... unless you compete head to head. Is MWP going to become an antivirus/etc-ware product?

If you want a number for a one-time membership... I'd suggest $60, 65 maybe ...and I'm talking about MWP without First Alert. I've never used FA, don't need it, probably never would... unless Firetrust wants to offload the auto-filtering work of the program to combine with the FA labor. There should remain the option to turn it off... lean runs mean. The 2010 version not only forces subscription eco-slavery... it includes First Alert in the fee ...does First Alert need more participants or is that inclusion the bone being thrown to customers for being forced to annually pay/update to keep the program working?
Not interested in subsidizing First Alert... keep it and its fee, optional. That's probably it... isn't it? ...including FA and its annual fee, as the new MWP 2010 'required renewal'. We ain't gonna fall for it. At the moment, I'm really trying to avoid posting a whole new topic accusing Firetrust of forcing First Alert on us by way of the 2010 'required renewal'... if someone else reading this wants to post that... feel free. So it's a way of 'recovering' all those 'loyal' 'lifetime' customers into the paying fold.

From the info pages, I see there's some good work done in 2010 version... I could probably pay a $24.95 one-time upGRADE fee, but -not- a yearly subscription update/usage fee. I buy it, it works, it should keep working... with bugfixes. If I change clients, operating system, want more new features, I'll ELECT to buy an upgrade (fee update).

"* Required renewal is currently $9.95 and is subject to change." Hmmm... well... 'subject to change' usually means an increase not a decrease, honestly.

Here's another idea... make at least a discounted fee for the previous lifetime members. I'm not suggesting this for myself, 'cause I don't like niggling little fees that pile up in the background (obviously)... I have a couple of those already... hotmail, webshots... (with those, I'm paying for continuing service and changing content... not renting usage of a program) ...but for the rest of the previously 'lifetime' customers... make that renewal a trivial amount... like $2.95/yr. That's another area where the "software/product as a utility" crowd gets it wrong... they overprice the periodic (parasitic) drain. The music sellers wanted at least $15/month... that's easy to reject ...if they had made it $3/month, they probably would have made it up IN VOLUME by the masses jumping on board. On second/third thought, forget the discounted fee, 'cause, again, I don't want to subsidize First Alert.

In this case, I think a 'lifetime' fee should not be more than 2.5x single use purchase.

And, I hope MWP doesn't go the 'Swiss army knife' route... 'suite's of software rarely perform well... most are just overburdensome to the hard/software platforms of the general audience. You wouldn't want every tool to be a leatherman... nor having only leathermans from which to choose.

Firetrust has a good tool... don't over-engineer it, don't downgrade it, don't abandon it. Better to use it as a hook to other premium products... provide the tool, with bugfixes... promote the upgrades.

Perhaps, Firetrust could turn 6.x MWP into base 2010 "Mailwasher" users... and call the new 'required renewal' users into the "Mailwasher PRO" version, with bundled FA and FA renewal fee. Ok... just rambling now... please remove the FA annual renewal / subsidizing / d@mn MWP 2010 rental fee (sorry .

[sabarnett]

"* Required renewal is currently $9.95 and is subject to change." Hmmm... well... 'subject to change' usually means an increase not a decrease, honestly.

I wonder how long it will be before this rises to only $14.95 or only $19.95 to pay for the bigger and more powerful servers FireTrust will need to run in order to support the increased traffic caused by the 'exceptional success' of First Alert.

[rusticdog]

The renewal is not to only cover FirstAlert, we never said that....in fact it's been FirstAlert users who have been renewing that's been paying for a great deal of support, ongoing development etc...and other things people previously got for free.

[waiwhite]

I noticed some negative comments about the annual $10 subscription fee for the new version. If I shake my head any harder it will fall off. $10 works out to 3 cents per day. No-one gets internet access for 3 cents per day - WTF!

I have to say that I am a little surprised with the change in policy. One of the things about Mailwasher was the once only licence fee. I know many users I have introduced to Mailwasher who will not be taking this up. It is not the cost but the way it has been done.

Sadly, Firetrust has shot itself in the foot. I fully understand the need to have an income stream so that it can continue development, but there are ways of doing this without alienating users (purchasers).

I am sorry if this appears negative, but here goes.

It started out with First Alert. This started out as a $7.95 annual fee. No problem here, but it went to $15.00 per year. Still OK, but then it jumped to $29.95 per year. It no longer looked the bargain it first was. Then in a rather cynical step, it went from US dollars to Euros. The number was the same, but the actual cost more than doubled. No wonder users went off it in a big way.

Now because not enough users subscribed to First Alert, it looks like it has been sheeted home to Mailwasher.

Even the web site talks about a year's free updates. It is only when you install it that you see there is an expiry of the licence. Even here, it is a touch underhanded. No one questions that a trial version will have an expiry date, so you can imagine the dismay when you see that after having upgraded the licence, paid the amount, you see that what you have ended up with is a subscription.

Even this from the notification e-mail gives you any hint of it being an annual licence fee:

"Due to the scale of this development, there is a small $US10 (or equivalent in your currency) purchase fee."

A purchase fee is a once off payment and is nothing like a subscription.

You bring it down to around 3c/day, however sadly Firetrust has somewhat of a history of pushing that amount up.

[Sidewinder]

I noticed some negative comments about the annual $10 subscription fee for the new version. If I shake my head any harder it will fall off. $10 works out to 3 cents per day. No-one gets internet access for 3 cents per day - WTF!

I have to say that I am a little surprised with the change in policy. One of the things about Mailwasher was the once only licence fee. I know many users I have introduced to Mailwasher who will not be taking this up. It is not the cost but the way it has been done.

Sadly, Firetrust has shot itself in the foot. I fully understand the need to have an income stream so that it can continue development, but there are ways of doing this without alienating users (purchasers).

I am sorry if this appears negative, but here goes.

It started out with First Alert. This started out as a $7.95 annual fee. No problem here, but it went to $15.00 per year. Still OK, but then it jumped to $29.95 per year. It no longer looked the bargain it first was. Then in a rather cynical step, it went from US dollars to Euros. The number was the same, but the actual cost more than doubled. No wonder users went off it in a big way.

Now because not enough users subscribed to First Alert, it looks like it has been sheeted home to Mailwasher.

Even the web site talks about a year's free updates. It is only when you install it that you see there is an expiry of the licence. Even here, it is a touch underhanded. No one questions that a trial version will have an expiry date, so you can imagine the dismay when you see that after having upgraded the licence, paid the amount, you see that what you have ended up with is a subscription.

Even this from the notification e-mail gives you any hint of it being an annual licence fee:

"Due to the scale of this development, there is a small $US10 (or equivalent in your currency) purchase fee."

A purchase fee is a once off payment and is nothing like a subscription.

You bring it down to around 3c/day, however sadly Firetrust has somewhat of a history of pushing that amount up.

Read the legal license, it is clear about subscription.

[rusticdog]

You bring it down to around 3c/day, however sadly Firetrust has somewhat of a history of pushing that amount up.

Well, only one person makes that decision, and if he lifts the price I'll publish his email address

[RpD]

The renewal is not to only cover FirstAlert, we never said that....in fact it's been FirstAlert users who have been renewing that's been paying for a great deal of support, ongoing development etc...and other things people previously got for free.

"Other things"... that I've not used. Don't use FA... don't use spam reporting, heck I don't even bother with bouncing. I would even contribute my assessment of a piece of spam to FA without paying/using FA, if that's possible... just to help others. But I don't get so much spam that makes it through... some does though, and sometimes in 'bursts'.

I use the auto-marking of spam, the friends/blacklist, the checkboxes, a few transient rules... yet they build it all up into a Swiss army knife of other features and now force an annual tribute for features that I would have to subsidize for others, because I don't use them.

I'll note it's not just me, that appreciates the simple convenience of MWP checking the server... and doesn't need all the other glorified reporting, stats, Spam TOOLS features. I expect I can continue 6.x until it doesn't work... probably next version of Windows or whatever. Still be nice to have a base version of "Mailwasher 2010" without the excess, without the forced subscription. MAKE "PRO" THE FULL-FEATURED SUBSCRIPTION. Give the rest of us the base shiny new look.

It's still funny how the subscription coincides with inclusion of FA, fee-free.

And not everyone goes through the license for every version released... once we feel we can trust the vendor, especially.
I only saw a side-reference to the ' required renewal' and started digging in website/forum to confirm the STOPS WORKING aspect... which is implied by the 'required' bit.

Anybody else for 'Lite'' non-subscription version? Maybe someone should post a 'poll'... hmmm.

.

[cfheinz]

Sadly, Firetrust has shot itself in the foot. I fully understand the need to have an income stream so that it can continue development, but there are ways of doing this without alienating users (purchasers).

The license doesn't apply to the original version of MWP. The difference between "original" and 2010 is substantial. Although both have a similar function and use similar resources, 2010, for me, is an entirely new program. For one thing, I can actually read the listings without squinting or using glasses.

Since I like the 2010 version, I'm willing to pay for it. The new program coupled with what I've found to be a high level of responsive customer support is provided for a fee which is less than I pay for other software.

I note the comment about a "lite" version, but how would that be paid for?

I admit that I'd like to see the fee policy changed so that if users don't care to continue paying the fee, it ceases to function. I think that a policy that Firetrust will no longer continue to provide updates if no annual fee is paid would be more palatable to a number of users.


A business has to be able to cover overhead. If it can't, it ceases to exist. Since I'd like to see Firetrust able to keep going, I'm willing to pay a reasonable fee for it.

But, this doesn't mean that I can't go back to the earlier version if I don't care for subsequent policy changes.

Thus far, I like such things as the license covering two computers. For me, this means that it's similar to the one user instead of one computer policy. I can have 2010 on both the desktop and the laptop.

[fupekatt]

I admit that I'd like to see the fee policy changed so that if users don't care to continue paying the fee, it ceases to function. I think that a policy that Firetrust will no longer continue to provide updates if no annual fee is paid would be more palatable to a number of users.

Disagree totally.
Vendors and developers would of course like to maintain and fix bugs, they prefer to have a smooth software out there. They are proud people. Nobody, and that includes the user, can be happy with an old, disfunctional version.

[sabarnett]

I admit that I'd like to see the fee policy changed so that if users don't care to continue paying the fee, it ceases to function. I think that a policy that Firetrust will no longer continue to provide updates if no annual fee is paid would be more palatable to a number of users.

Disagree totally.
Vendors and developers would of course like to maintain and fix bugs, they prefer to have a smooth software out there. They are proud people. Nobody, and that includes the user, can be happy with an old, disfunctional version.

If a piece of software that I buy 'does the job' that I wanted it for and does not have anything wrong with it that stops me achievig my needs, then I may well skip an upgrade. Every piece of software I have allows me to do that exept the new MWP. I am being blackmailed in to paying for upgrades that I may not want. I have, therefore, done as advised in other posts and voted with my wallet. I am running 6.5 again, which does what I want of it and does not have any significant issues that stops it doing what I want.

As a software developer myself, I agree that we take pride in our software and want it to be bug free and want all our customers to be happy. As a software developer, I am also realistic enough to know that I can have almost no influence over the bean counters who make the sales and accounting decisions. This is what I suspect has happened here. The nameless, faceless bodies that spend their time looking at spreadsheets rather than code have decided how to maximise profits and have implemented the plan. The developers will not have been consulted.

I also doubt those bean counters spend any time in the forums to gauge how the long standing and loyal customers feel about this policy. It's simple math, for every one who does not renwe or upgrade they'll capture another user via some expensive (but ultimately successfull) marketing campaign.

I believe it's called churn and it's expected.

Steve

[cfheinz]

Disagree totally.
Vendors and developers would of course like to maintain and fix bugs, they prefer to have a smooth software out there. They are proud people. Nobody, and that includes the user, can be happy with an old, disfunctional version.

I simply point out that other software vendors don't pull the plug, they just cease to update. Also, as someone who worked variously as a DP manager and as a senior programmer/analyst for a bit under thirty years, I share you point that there is pride in a job well done. But those who wish to pay for ongoing support can do so by renewing their subscriptions. Those who are satisfied with the present client normally can do so without renewing a subscription.

In the past, I've ceased using programs which continued to add features for which I had no use and declined to continue paying for upgrades which did not meet my needs.

However, my comment was a only a suggestion. If the renewal price of $10 was determined assuming that everyone who wished to continue to use the product would renew, that's an argument in favor of the current policy. If the required annual renewal was necessary to support the annual fee, then I've no problem with the policy.

It's been my experience that the folks at Firetrust do listen. The change to a two computer license is a case in point. On a more personal level was the response which now allows us to optionally turn off the error tone.

[Sidewinder]

As a software developer, I am also realistic enough to know that I can have almost no influence over the bean counters who make the sales and accounting decisions. This is what I suspect has happened here. The nameless, faceless bodies that spend their time looking at spreadsheets rather than code have decided how to maximise profits and have implemented the plan. The developers will not have been consulted.

I also doubt those bean counters spend any time in the forums to gauge how the long standing and loyal customers feel about this policy. It's simple math, for every one who does not renwe or upgrade they'll capture another user via some expensive (but ultimately successfull) marketing campaign.

I believe it's called churn and it's expected.

Steve

"As a software developer" I presume that you did not work for free and received compensation in the form of pay and benefits on a regular basis and there needed to be source of revenue coming in on a sustained basis to cover those expense and produce a profit or the company would have gone belly up.

[sabarnett]

"As a software developer" I presume that you did not work for free and received compensation in the form of pay and benefits on a regular basis and there needed to be source of revenue coming in on a sustained basis to cover those expense and produce a profit or the company would have gone belly up.

Absolutely I took a wage and the company was/is profitable. That's because we have a product that people want and are prepared to pay for and continue to renew software licenses. Those that do not renew their licenses get support on an informal basis and, should they find a bug or need a new feature, we listen to their needs, decide whether it benefits our product, make the modification and tell them to buy the upgrade. THEY make the decision as to whether it is worth the upgrade costs. Those that would prefer not to, continue to use the version of the software they have and live without the bug fix or new feature.

A user base that has trust in the software AND the organisation tends not to worry about upgrade costs (Note: NOT subscription costs).

Oh, and yes, I have worked for three software companies in the last five years for free (and am working for one right now for free in my spare time) because I have faith in what they are trying to do and in the hopes of compensation at some later date. If it works out, then great. If not, then I've worked for nothing except the experience of writing another product. Two of those organisations failed to make a go of their software because they implemented highly restrictive subscription based charges on their customers. The users loved the software and pilot schemes were highly successful. Then the contracts were presented for the roll-out and the customers walked away.

You seem to want to fight this battle on the basis that people do not want to pay for the software and the upgrades. I, and a great many people here, do not object to paying for the software or the subscription. My objection is to the software stopping IF I decide to let the subscription lapse. Even Microsoft don't do that.

Steve

[Sidewinder]

Even Microsoft don't do that.Steve

MS may well be there in the next few months based on what I have read. No details yet but my guess is it may be related to Office in the "Cloud".

[RpD]

Those of use who don't want to 'rent' software will not support a Microsoft cloud 'required' subscription either... and MS isn't dumb enough to require that while dropping their old products and users.
If you want to rent your software, fine... happy computing ...but I don't rent hardware and I won't rent software... something that needs to be nipped in the bud, if all programmers are going to think they'll have a captive audience revenue stream. Lets then have a Walmart of software suites to rent, which pushes out all the independents. Rent our cloud bundle, you don't need anything else.

MWP went from generous software to an eco-slavery model... from email maintenance to trying to be a security software set. I've never suggested people put out and not get paid... as a poster above noted, that's not the point... the point is the all new MWP as rental... and the non-bold disclosure of the new rental basis... and the push the previous 'loyal' customers off a cliff... The main point is the 'STOPS WORKING if you don't pay tribute'.

I purchase software. I purchase new-feature upgrades. Bugfix updates are expected.

I've annually paid for a continuing service... email, and I've annually paid for continuing/refreshed/new content provided... graphics content/sharing... but I've NEVER rented software... and won't... and the bean counters need to understand there are -many- users who won't, and not run their customers off the cliff of pay-up or else ('stops working').

And the 'Lite' version suggested... that's a one-time purchase, no expiry, reduced features sure... for previously loyal customers who choose not to rent. Many software products have a lite and a pro version... I'm not telling them what features to put in it... just that they should have it... the 'lite' version that doesn't STOP WORKING without a continual payment. The Lite version that hooks customers to buy the Pro version.

It's clear that Firetrust has prioritized development of the Spam Tools at the expense of the original basic product... and users of said basic product, the filter/sorter, must now subsidize development of the Tools/First Alert. Instead I suggest the basic product continue... for 'loyal' users, in a Lite form or the basic 'Mailwasher' program, and the 'Pro' users can have the up-to-the-minute, needs constant updating, Tools 'required renewal' version. The basic email care does not need the daily development of a 'required renewal' subscription version.... it's not like an antivirus environment with a constantly evolving threat that needs constant counter-development. I'm not a spam "Tools" user, I'm a Mailwasher user... and I think I should also have an upgrade available, which doesn't expire.

As a tech, I recommend software... a lot of users have resisted acquiring recommended tools... it would be even harder to get them to acquire a subscription... and I won't recommend 'required renewal' rental of the basic Mailwasher.

.