The future of FSUIPC

[Wilson 2]

Ken,I understand what you are saying, and my knee-jerk reaction was to agree with you, but after more thinking, I agree with John. Yes the freeware programmers used Peter's program, but to me that is the point -- they ALSO are freeware programmers. They have developed freeware software based on freeware software. I see no legitimate fees here. Should the freeware developers also charge Peter a fee for promoting his software? Part of freeware development has to be ego satisfaction (and I don't mean in a negative sense). ##### for tat. (Sorry, the censors got me, based on dirty censor minds lol)To me, the spirit of freeware is just that -- a FREE contribution to, in this case, a specialized hobby. No compensation should be expected. On the other hand, if the software development has grown beyond Peter's original vision, then I also agree that he SHOULD start charging for it.But, in my opinion, that charge should be to the commercial vendors who are, in fact, making a profit based on Peter's free contribution to the hobby. To me, THEY are clearly the ones who need to make a, uh, contribution to Peter. If they then want to pass that fee on to users through increased pricing, then so be it. The end user can decide if it is worth that price. And, Peter, the guy who did a lot of the front end work that made their software possible, would also benefit.Sorry, as much as appreciate what Peter has contributed,and how many add-ons I run that require his expertise, I do not agree that a contribution is appropriate. If Peter desires compensation, then it should be through for-profit venues, not freeware ones. I will fully support Peter through the purchase of high quality commerical vendors who have paid Peter a SUBSTANTIAL fee for making their commercial product a succes. And, Micro$oft ought to be the first one to take advantage of his abilities.Just another opinion thrown on the heap. Wilson

[Guest]

>>I wonder if perhaps other folks might be 'put off' by the fact that >donating through the simMarket link is only possible in Euros?>>On the right frame there is a section labeled 'currencies'. >You can select dollars and all the prices from then on will >display in US dollars. Thanks Ernie! There's so much visual 'clutter' on the site that I somehow didn't see that!I'm off not to make the drop!

[Guest]

Just a few words;Personaly I don`t care what Peter will decide (please don`t flame me until you read the whole post)Keep in mind I have a great respect toward him. He`s a grown up professional and he can do whatever he wants. Just like myself.I use his software right now and if I`ll need software I`ll buy it if it comes to payware (it will happen most likely).What really made me reply to this post is a "catfight" over freeware and payware.I`m a 3D artist working on feature films. I download freeware airplanes and sceneries. After installing them 80% of the time I delete them because of the quality. Don`t get me wrong. I`m not saying you should know how to optimise a model or how to paint a "photorealistic" panel ( it became so overused it`s making me laugh)And here is my point; the guys who are developing freeware stuff, great guys, but no-one expect them to create something what is almost perfect. On the other hand there are artists and programmers spending months to make the product a "quality" one. They should get payed.After months of work on a plane( in these days there is not too much work in Hollywood for freelance artists :) ) and teaming up with a pilot I decide I`ll sell it not give it away. I`ll charge maybe $5-8 for it. You can download free planes. That`s fine. But when you realise those are wont taxi on idle or they just not acting like the real one you can decide if it`s worth for you to pay.To make the long story short; there are place for both payware and freeware. If you want to make money on it... ask for money. If your product is good enough they`ll pay for it. It`s you the users choice to pay or download.

[Guest SIX]

Two things:1. Everything I have ever read about this guy says he was purely in it for the enjoyment and satsifaction of seeing others use the product. That he was a retired individual with a good retirement income and not worried about the money. 2. I have been involved in the development of a 'little' program that would need to call FS2k2 and ask information from it. I had my developer email Dowson about us PAYING him to help us write part of the module or at least consult on it. He never really gave an answer, just kept bragging to my guy in email after email "Do you understand the knowledge I have? Do you know how long I have been doing this?" We knew that! That is why we wanted your help.Combo on those two things I why I haven't donated.I say let the market bear what the market bears. Personally, I think the developer route is the most benificial. But, you see, as soon as he did that. There would be 10 competitors. That is the way the ball rolls!-----------Wilson HinesChief CaptainBush Logistics Corp.http://heavylhc.comAOL IM: dal276wh

[Guest]

Late to the discussion, but I thought I'd post anyways.It would seem the answer to this is simple: set it Free. Open source the program and let SourceForge] host, manage and encourage its future development. It would then grow into a community wide and supported project.Pete wins because he can then do what he stated in that message: obtain some "real" contract work in a non-hobby field (for undoubtedly excellent remuneration knowing his abilities). Plus, he gets to see his baby flourish in ways and in a timely fashion that it never could under one developers umbrella.Users win because they get to keep access to an essential tool (one that, unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't but should provide). Plus, the community can participate in its growth in areas that are unthought of today. Even better, its an excellent rally point for a community.But alas, I doubt this will happen. While many communities in the world fully embrace such ideas (almost all game communities for certain), this hasn't been one of them to date.Can't hurt to throw it out there regardless.Take care,Elrond---Not enough bandwidth to display this signature! Don't reformat hard drive? (Y/N[/b)

[Guest SIX]

Enrod, that is a good suggestion, but Pete is trying to make a buck ROFLOLSeriously, I think that is a fair suggestion.-----------Wilson HinesChief CaptainBush Logistics Corp.http://heavylhc.comAOL IM: dal276wh

[Guest byoung]

The question is for FS 2004 / FS 9, will FSUIPC be needed?Answer: Yes, then Microsoft should cough up the bucks to Pete and buy FUSIPC outright and contract him for a year or two to support it. And then release it with the FS 2004 / FS9. Then figure out a way to phase it out in the next version. Of course, arrogance may get in the way!Answer: No, then we're beating a dead horse. Final comments and I rest my case!Even though it may not be required for FS 2K4 / FS9, I donated to Pete because without FSUIPC Flight Simulator 2002 would be mediorcre at best. I have enjoyed many many hours of third party add-ons, of which would not be possible without FSUIPC.Pete is awesome and I wish him the very best! I hope Microsoft comes out of the Arrogantly Challenged mode and works with Pete on a solution that is mutually beneficial to everyone: Pete, MS and the Flight Sim Community. Can't we all just get along?Barry

[steffenpelz 0]

All right,Now that I've read all the posts, including the post from Pete himself, let me share my perspective with all of you out there. I'll try to do this as lucidly as possible, so bear with me....May it be said that I have no personal experience with Pete, only the pleasure of using his utilities. And please read all the way to the end of the post before you get mad and post a reply. I have tried to pick up a good mix of arguments from all parties and some are not going to like certain portions of thsi email, but I believe that if I can get most people to read the whole post, that most people will follow the logic and at least not find any of my post insulting.Nuff said, let's dive into the subject at hand:1) The question as far as I understand it is whether Pete shoule be accepting donations, or charging (or whatever other form of compensation) for the use of future releases of FSUIPC in general.Well, I think that since he devoted a lot of time to the development of FSUIPC in the past and served it up free, all old versions that are currently operating should obviously stay freeware. I also think that given the time involved in developing this tool, which has brought so much fun to all of us merits being paid for it. If I worked day and night to program software that makes thousands of people around the world (who are already spending fortunes on appropriate hardware and add-ons) enjoy FS more, I, too, would like to be compensated for it. With that said, I think Pete in general is entitled to compensation going forward, if he decides to do so.2) The second question is why Pete want to be compensated at this point. It is here, that I have to question Pete's motives...If this was merely about compensating him for his hard work, that decision should have been made long ago. This is not about the hard work by itself, folks. Sure, we are indebted to Pete for providing us a great utility, but we are not indebted monetarily to him, as his releases were freeware and proclaimed to be the work of altruism and fun. So why does Pete want to charge right now? The apparent answer is that he is finding himself in a case of hardship. Hardship so tough he is on a two week vacation and nearing retirement at 60. Let me tell you something...my father is also approaching 60 and not even within 10 years of retiring (and not taking 2 week holidays). It is not one's birth right to retire at age 60. Now, if his medical state impedes him from working and that's what prompts his retirement, I question his long-term value to the FS world as well. I think Pete wants to be paid because he wants to keep up the standard of living he has enjoyed in the past. Problem with that is that only very few people as a result of the 3 year plus global Bear Market can even dream of having that hope. This is a classic case of bloated expectations.Pete (as far as I understand from all posts) has not even lost his job, much unlike many other people he now wants to charge, who make much less money to begin with.I could also argue that Pete could have tried to look for a better paid job all along, or raised a business in the time he spent building and developing FSUIPC. The FS community should not necessarily be held responsible for bad personal decisions its members make. I for once can relate to Pete. I work from home for a company 1500 miles away, but I understand what can happen if I did nothing while at home and if I did not come up with a number of good, actionable ideas each month. Trust me, I am not devoting my time to FS, but to make sure I stay valuable to my employer.That said, I have no pity with Pete. He could most certainly have a good life, even if he did not charge for FSUIPC.3) Donations?My opinion is that donations only work in areas where people are donated to that have nothing to their name. That is the only time human pity will overcome greed. Subsidising a certain lifestyle for someone who has premature retirment in mind...forget it. Donation was the worst decision Pete could have made. As a matter of fact, I bet that had Pete straightaway decided to charge, we would not have been writing as many emails on this subject.4) Charging?Yes. That's the way to go. For more than one reason. I'm a big believer of capitalism. If Pete starts charging, he can name the price he wants to meet his objectives (whether that be maintining living standards or becoming rich at an advanced age). If the market deems his price worth it, they'll buy and since both parties are making a perceived profit, everyone wins. Pete gets money, and FS users get to have lots of fun. If his price is too high, the market will not buy because they don't see a perceived profit and over time, Pete will adjust his prices down and make it work for everyone.There's something else to this. In a market environment, when this type of utility is being sold and paid for, Pete will now have to perform. If he doesn't people are not going to buy his product. If he doesn't, a competitor may come in and put him out of business. This is real Darwinism. No tears, no hardship, no whining. Serve up the best product, ask for a price deemed reasonable by the market and make a killing. Nothing wrong with that. The reason why our man Pete has a monopoly is that he's simply better than anybody else at providing the utility...So far...But that is only because the motivation for others lacks to get into this arena. If all of a sudden the development of such a utility was potentially financially rewarding, trust you me, there are going to be others that want a piece of that pie. At that time, it's up to Pete to show how good he really is...and it is possible that he is not the best at developing this. He's merely the only one right now. The markets have as far as that's concerned, a way of directing each and every person in the direction where they're most proficient.5) How to charge?I guess I don't know what way is the right way. To me, the markets will dictate. Pete's going to do it in which ever way he'll make more money. I personally think that the money is with the commercial add-on developers and MS...and the consistency. Consumers are just too skiddish for a product of flexible demand as FSUIPC, for Pete to make a killing in the long run. Consider this....if the economy keeps doing as bad as now for another while, FS users will think even harder whether to spend an extra $15 for FSUIPC. Their cardiac medication, though, will still have to be paid for no matter what the economy is doing. Similarly, if MS and add-on developers want to keep developing new stuff, they'll have to go to Pete no matter how bad the economy is doing. And they'll have to figure out how to pass that cost down to the consumers at a reasonable cost through volume sales.6) ConclusionNow, I hope I have not offended anyone. If I did, please accept my apologies, I did not intend to do so. Please feel free to reply to my post whether you like it or hate it.Thanks to Pete and good luck with whatever path he chooses,SP