Jump to content

bob.bernstein

Frozen-Inactivity
  • Content Count

    962
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bob.bernstein

  • Rank
    Member
  1. The whole time I read thru this thread I kept thinking about how unlikely it would ever be for me to call Microsoft in search of help for FSX. Funny, isn't it, that the very base of all fs developers is supported so differently. And, of course, Avsim and the other fine sites filled that void. Imagine where we'd be if questions about FS bugs were referred to Microsoft!!Having said that, do contact ORBX for support....they are pros!
  2. I tend to compare fsx to my memory of afs2, and later fs3.0, and find it to be amazingly evolved. Squishy compares fsx to his most perfect ideal, and finds it lacking. Since it is what it is, I'd say my way of looking at it results in more happiness. Just my opinion, of course.
  3. How you spend your free time doesn't merit this much energy.
  4. Hi gang, just rebuilt my computer with win 7 and new processor/memory/mobo....spanky. It runs well, and flightsim has never been better....well, except when I could enjoy your improved weather with active sky x and GEX!I thought I'd backed up enough cuz I had a file called "license", but it doesn't contain the activation code. Can you help? The date on my license is 4-26-07 . if that helps. Best,Bob Bernstein
  5. bob.bernstein

    Terrafugia

    I can't decide which I drool over more:
  6. Ron, while I generally have supported the industry's viewpoint (and your's in specific) I don't like it when you attempt to silence an opposing viewpoint with this type of juxtoposition. Opposing viewpoints can very well exist without the debater falling into the category of the thief. To end opposing viewpoints by this type of false categorization will chill discourse, something that would be ultimately a disspointment to the community.bestBob
  7. I credit you for our ability to communicate, as you began to take seriously the need to view the problem from the vendor's point of view, and accept that they will make decisions based on maximizing profit. Here, I would argue its a two way street. Several of your posts have blended your anger at the industry with your logic, so its not easy to have an objective discussion. The defensiveness is not irrational when you remember that these people are working hard to eek out an income, and creative thinking about business changes that don't account for the needs of the entrepreneur will evoke unexpected reactions. I would say your first posts did not appear to be helping the business owner with as much benefit as you hoped to gain personally, and this set the wheels in motion for hostile response. Using a tone in which you really attempt to achieve an improved outcome for both the vendor and the customer is a better approach. You did a good job adopting that viewpoint with me later in the thread, but some folks take a long time to calm down.Cheers,Bob
  8. I would suspect that the designers dedication to their development business is completely independent of their enjoyment of debate. :( Bob
  9. Thanks Bob...the OPs thinking makes more sense with that added idea.
  10. It appears the OP gets it, and accepts that current rules outlaw his idea. IMHO, he's headed on the right track to imagine how to approach a company with a proposal. Nobody does anything really well until they practice.It would be foolish to presume change will never happen, and it could be with the right tone and practice analyzing business, the OP will someday present an awesome proposal to a company that gets adopted for the good of all. I think after three pages, there has been some learning, and that's a good thing. No reason to re-iterate the current legal limits.
  11. Congrats! You've begun to analyze the issue from the company's point of view. Well done! From what I understand so far, the company fails to gain profits from the "second" license grant, yet incurs the cost of "installation issues". Did I get that wrong? Clearly if I understand it correctly, this would be a non-starter. The company would much prefer just selling those customers a "first" license for full retail price. Interesting concept. But if the secondary market provides no profit to the company, why are they better off with pure piracy or the secondhand market. Neither one provides profit. Perhaps you are thinking that the code would include some trigger that would go off upon a license transfer that would force the secondary customer to pay something for installation? Is that what you are thinking? I don't know if that is possible, but it is a thought. Good thinking to ask what the benefits would be, and unless you have some mechanism like above for the company to profit, I see fewer sales. You did say ", or not"...you also realize that the gains are unknown. Your second sentence is worth a thought, its about taking risk. How certain must the returns be to change strategy? "It depends" is the only real answer. Some businesses are more risk averse than others. This may be one risk that the business owner can't reverse course on if he/she hates it. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can be impossible to stuff it back in. Business risk is often explored in mini-experiments, but I don't know how that could be done with your idea. Perhaps there would be a way. Keep in mind that fsaddon business does not provide for comfortable revenue. When you are scraping the barrel for revenue it tends to make one more risk averse. I get it that you think the value you received for software you purchase was not a fair exchange for the money you paid. Good job changing your head around to explore the company's viewpoint. Just answer me one question, if you were right that the secondary market would be good for software business, why do you think Microsoft missed this opportunity to become more wealthy. IMHO, they don't miss many tricks.Best,Bob
  12. Gus, there are two basic notions being discussed in this thread. They are both interesting, but don't logically connect all that well. On one hand, I've read that some posters wish the software companies would make changes to honor the wishes of the customer to permit a secondary marketplace. The second concept is challenging the legality of the present SOP that Software companies use, primarily focused on the EULA. My posts, so far, have focused on how companies make decisions....very different focus than exploring the legal rights companies have to do what they are doing. There have already been some challenges to the EULA concept, I know some lawyers frequent this forum...they could cite real cases. I don't know exactly what has happened in those cases, but they should be reviewed prior to calling for "urgent change". One case I heard about did center on exactly what you raised as a concern, Gus....and that argument claimed that the contract was established at the point in which considerations (money for product in this case) were exchanged. Following that logic, any new stipulations that impact the exchange cannot be levied after the contract is established. This clearly would challenge the "hidden" eula notion, regardless of return policies. I believe the concern in that case was a practice of companies not printing minimum hardware requirements clearly on the outside of the packaging, but the notion does appear to be effective precedent to challenge the eula. It would be interesting for someone who is facile with the legal databases to provide more insight.Bob
  13. Here's the disconnect between our thinking. Your idea doesn't need any discussion if you would be willing to behave illegally, and take your chances running afoul of the justice system. But you want your secondary marketplace idea to be LEGAL and so you have written your forum posts. Therefore....the big task you are facing is to get the companies to become complicit, that the companies make changes to suit your idea.Therefore, everything I'm telling you is from the company's point of view. When I discuss altruism, its the Company's altruism of which I speak. You seem to be quick to apply my words to this imaginary secondary marketplace. Don't do that. This marketplace doesn't and won't legally exist until the Company's permit it.If you wish your idea to be legal, you must look at it from the viewpoint of the Companies and give them a good reason to participate. If you hope they participate because it would be "nice" for you...you are asking for altruism. You begin to have a chance when you demonstrate that the profits they would enjoy with your idea would be greater than the profits they currently enjoy.Bob
  14. Bob, I thought I was clear in one reason why licenses should not be transferrable. The reason is that the industry profits by NOT permitting the transferring of licenses. The profit gained by keeping the rules as they exist today currently outweighs the cost of discontent within the customer base.How is there any confusion?Bob B(PS...Ron I hadn't noticed your post...we just said the same thing, sorry for repeating the message.)(PPS...its kind of refreshing to agree with you on something! I told you that might happen if we live long enough!)
×
×
  • Create New...