iPhone commercial license costs

[Sam Lantinga-4]

So currently the commercial license for SDL 1.3 on iPhone is $300 per
product, but after looking at the market and the people looking to
develop on iPhone, I'm seriously considering dropping the cost to $100
per product with a discount for multiple products.

Thoughts?

See ya!
--
        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Sam Lantinga-4]

I'm also seriously considering offering free educational licensing for
all platforms, if SDL 1.3 is being used for class projects.  The
student would of course have to provide the e-mail address of their
teacher for validation. :)

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Sam Lantinga <slouken@...> wrote:

> So currently the commercial license for SDL 1.3 on iPhone is $300 per
> product, but after looking at the market and the people looking to
> develop on iPhone, I'm seriously considering dropping the cost to $100
> per product with a discount for multiple products.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> See ya!
> --
>        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
>

--
        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Ken Rogoway]

I think that is a great idea.  Not just because it is cheaper, but because
of the reality of the iPhone marketplace.  I have a couple of friends that
started companies and their first products were for the iPhone.  One has his
product in the top 25 and yet that is only generating a 200-300 sales a
month.  The other company is in the top 50 and gets about 50-100 sales a
month.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: sdl-bounces@... [mailto:sdl-bounces@...] On
Behalf Of Sam Lantinga
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 10:43 PM
To: SDL
Subject: [SDL] iPhone commercial license costs

So currently the commercial license for SDL 1.3 on iPhone is $300 per
product, but after looking at the market and the people looking to develop
on iPhone, I'm seriously considering dropping the cost to $100 per product
with a discount for multiple products.

Thoughts?

See ya!
--
        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Bob Pendleton]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Sam Lantinga <slouken@...> wrote:
> I'm also seriously considering offering free educational licensing for
> all platforms, if SDL 1.3 is being used for class projects.  The
> student would of course have to provide the e-mail address of their
> teacher for validation. :)

I don't see the legal need for that. SDL 1.3 is still LGPL so there is
no problem using it for classes on many platforms and even on
something like the iPhone you can use it under the LGPL so long as you
do not distribute it. At least that is the way I understand it. I
suppose don't think of turning in a project as distribution.... which
could be a wrong view.

I do see that posting "Free for educational use" would make a lot of
not too bright CS instructors and Department heads a lot less nervous
about using it in classes :-). You have to consider that "educational
use" extends way past use in the class room. It opens it up to self
education, use in books, use by self help groups, use at "game camp",
and so on. So, there may not be an instructor to talk to and the
instructor may not be associated with a recognized educational
institution.

I have actually used SDL 1.2 in a whole bunch of classes and I love it
as an instructional aid. And, I am planning to use 1.3 in a class as
soon as I get the chance.

Oddly enough, I have gotten serious push back from students who are
unwilling to use SDL in any way shape of form. They want to learn the
details of one specific platform's APIs rather than learn principles
that apply to all platforms. These folks come into class believing
they know exactly what they need to learn to write games.  (I guess it
is no surprise that those students rarely manage to finish a single
project...)

Bob Pendleton

>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Sam Lantinga <slouken@...> wrote:
>> So currently the commercial license for SDL 1.3 on iPhone is $300 per
>> product, but after looking at the market and the people looking to
>> develop on iPhone, I'm seriously considering dropping the cost to $100
>> per product with a discount for multiple products.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> See ya!
>> --
>>        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
>>
>
>
>
> --
>        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL@...
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
+ email: Bob@...
+ web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[masonwheeler]

>----- Original Message ----

>From: Bob Pendleton <bob@...>
>Subject: Re: [SDL] iPhone commercial license costs
>
>Oddly enough, I have gotten serious push back from students who are
>unwilling to use SDL in any way shape of form. They want to learn the
>details of one specific platform's APIs rather than learn principles
>that apply to all platforms. These folks come into class believing
>they know exactly what they need to learn to write games.  (I guess it
>is no surprise that those students rarely manage to finish a single
>project...)

Maybe they're just smart enough to realize that relying on an
abstraction before you know how it works and what's really going
on is asking for trouble.

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Donny Viszneki]

Some of my friends who have developed for the iphone didn't even come
close to recouping their development costs on their first few apps. Is
there any reason not to license SDL to the end-user instead, and
charge the developer per copy?

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Sam Lantinga <slouken@...> wrote:

> So currently the commercial license for SDL 1.3 on iPhone is $300 per
> product, but after looking at the market and the people looking to
> develop on iPhone, I'm seriously considering dropping the cost to $100
> per product with a discount for multiple products.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> See ya!
> --
>        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL@...
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>

--
http://codebad.com/
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Bob Pendleton]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler@...> wrote:

>>----- Original Message ----
>
>>From: Bob Pendleton <bob@...>
>>Subject: Re: [SDL] iPhone commercial license costs
>>
>>Oddly enough, I have gotten serious push back from students who are
>>unwilling to use SDL in any way shape of form. They want to learn the
>>details of one specific platform's APIs rather than learn principles
>>that apply to all platforms. These folks come into class believing
>>they know exactly what they need to learn to write games.  (I guess it
>>is no surprise that those students rarely manage to finish a single
>>project...)
>
> Maybe they're just smart enough to realize that relying on an
> abstraction before you know how it works and what's really going
> on is asking for trouble.

Chuckle :)

That would make sense if we were talking about DOS where you started
out writing the interrupt handler shim needed to capture the timer
interrupt so you could set the hardware timer to some reasonable
frequency for timers and then use the captured interrupt to poll the
joystick, control the pitch of the tone coming out of the speaker, and
implement high precision timers... Yeah, if we were talking about
systems where you had to actually stuff specially formated values into
registers at specific address in just the right order to set the video
mode or feed the sound DAC.  We did that in the bad old days, we do
not do that any more.

Today *all* APIs are abstractions. Even the so called low level APIs
are high level abstractions. You never get to see what is "really"
going on. It works much better to learn the general principles so that
you can recognize how each API implements the general principles. If
you start with the details of one API you can be completely stuck when
you want to do what the blippflappo() function from the Framajam API
does using the BliP! API. If on the other hand you want to know how to
play samples with different sample frequencies you can recognize the
correct function in *any* API.

The over identification of concept with implementation ends the
careers of more programmers, and even more students, than any other
mental defect I have ever encountered.

The first time I noticed the problem I was talking to an experience
programmer about parsing techniques and I made the off hand remark
that you could write a compiler in Basic if you were masochistic. His
reply was the you could not, ever, under any circumstances, write a
compiler in Basic. I was shocked down to my knees, but rather than
arguing with him I asked why he believed that? His reply was that
Basic could not call the OS function that was used to output
relocatable object code... That is, the Basic provided by UNIVAC on
UNIVAC 1100 series computers running EXEC 8 did not provide a command
to output the specific version of relocatable object code understood
by the EXEC 8 linker... To him a compiler was a program that called
that specific OS function. If it didn't do that, it wasn't a compiler.
Notice how strongly attached to details the poor fellow was. To him
Basic was not a general idea, or a specification, it was the specific
version provided by a specific vendor on a specific type of 36 bit
ones complement batch main frame OS. And, of course, a compiler was
not a program that translates from one formal language to another. To
him a compiler was a program that output relocatable object code in a
specific format using a specific operating system call only provided
by a single OS on a particular type of 36 bit ones complement computer
architecture.

He did not last long as a programmer.

BTW, this is a guy I went through school with. He was a good friend. I
was a groomsman at his wedding and I got good an drunk with him after
his divorce...  But, the guy never made it as a programmer.

I see this mental defect all the time in students and occasionally in
working programmers. I never see it in people who managed to stay
programmers for 10 or more years.

Bob Pendleton



>
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL@...
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>



--
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
+ email: Bob@...
+ web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[masonwheeler]

>----- Original Message ----

>From: Bob Pendleton <bob@...>
>Subject: Re: [SDL] iPhone commercial license costs
>
>The first time I noticed the problem I was talking to an experience
>programmer about parsing techniques and I made the off hand remark
>that you could write a compiler in Basic if you were masochistic. His
>reply was the you could not, ever, under any circumstances, write a
>compiler in Basic. I was shocked down to my knees, but rather than
>arguing with him I asked why he believed that? His reply was that
>Basic could not call the OS function that was used to output
>relocatable object code... That is, the Basic provided by UNIVAC on
>UNIVAC 1100 series computers running EXEC 8 did not provide a command
>to output the specific version of relocatable object code understood
>by the EXEC 8 linker... To him a compiler was a program that called
>that specific OS function. If it didn't do that, it wasn't a compiler.
>Notice how strongly attached to details the poor fellow was. To him
>Basic was not a general idea, or a specification, it was the specific
>version provided by a specific vendor on a specific type of 36 bit
>ones complement batch main frame OS. And, of course, a compiler was
>not a program that translates from one formal language to another. To
>him a compiler was a program that output relocatable object code in a
>specific format using a specific operating system call only provided
>by a single OS on a particular type of 36 bit ones complement computer
>architecture.
>
>He did not last long as a programmer.

Looks to me like he's overly attached to a particular abstraction and
doesn't understand the details behind it.  If he knew how relocatable
object code worked on a UNIVAC 1100 series, he would be able to
write a routine to produce it himself instead of needing the OS to do
it for him.  :P

Also, I'm a bit confused.  You introduce him as "an experience[d]
programmer", but then at the end you say he didn't last long.  How am
I to interpret that?

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Bob Pendleton]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki@...> wrote:
> Some of my friends who have developed for the iphone didn't even come
> close to recouping their development costs on their first few apps. Is
> there any reason not to license SDL to the end-user instead, and
> charge the developer per copy?

Yeah, a one time charge is easy to collect and easy to verify. The
time and expense of logging all purchases and sending in quarterly, or
even, yearly license fees are a royal pain in the ass for the
developer and pretty much ensure that Sam will never see most of the
money he is due.

Let's say I write an iPhone application using SDL and sell 37 copies
over the following year. For that I own Sam, say 0.037 USD. Yeah, 3.7
cents... hey, 0.1 cent per sale is reasonable for an app that sells
for $1 per copy... Ok, let's say Sam charges 1 cent per copy so we owe
him a whole 37 cents, the results are the same. At the end of the year
I look at that and say, screw "Sam, It isn't enough for me to feel
guilty about. If he wants he can sue me!".

OTOH, if I send Sam $100 when the app is accepted at the app store Sam
gets his money and at the end of the year I don't feel guilty. Not to
mention that I get to deduct the $100 as a business expense! Hey, I'm
not out much for SDL. Sam got paid. I got a tax deduction. What is
$100 bucks compared to the actual cost of equipment and time needed to
develop an iPhone app? Nothing.

Stick with one time fees. People will pay those.

Bob Pendleton

>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Sam Lantinga <slouken@...> wrote:
>> So currently the commercial license for SDL 1.3 on iPhone is $300 per
>> product, but after looking at the market and the people looking to
>> develop on iPhone, I'm seriously considering dropping the cost to $100
>> per product with a discount for multiple products.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> See ya!
>> --
>>        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
>> _______________________________________________
>> SDL mailing list
>> SDL@...
>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://codebad.com/
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL@...
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
+ email: Bob@...
+ web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Donny Viszneki]

I would have accepted a reasoned response from Sam, but your response
seems almost deliberately obtuse. You picked a pricing model designed
to invalidate any licensing deal that is invoked each time you sell a
copy, and you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that if someone
only sells 37 copies, not only can they not justify their licensing
costs, but apparently now we're supposed to believe that people are
less willing to pay their bill the *less* it is. The tax deduction is
also a totally bunk argument.

*departs the discussion*

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Bob Pendleton <bob@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki@...> wrote:
>> Some of my friends who have developed for the iphone didn't even come
>> close to recouping their development costs on their first few apps. Is
>> there any reason not to license SDL to the end-user instead, and
>> charge the developer per copy?
>
> Yeah, a one time charge is easy to collect and easy to verify. The
> time and expense of logging all purchases and sending in quarterly, or
> even, yearly license fees are a royal pain in the ass for the
> developer and pretty much ensure that Sam will never see most of the
> money he is due.
>
> Let's say I write an iPhone application using SDL and sell 37 copies
> over the following year. For that I own Sam, say 0.037 USD. Yeah, 3.7
> cents... hey, 0.1 cent per sale is reasonable for an app that sells
> for $1 per copy... Ok, let's say Sam charges 1 cent per copy so we owe
> him a whole 37 cents, the results are the same. At the end of the year
> I look at that and say, screw "Sam, It isn't enough for me to feel
> guilty about. If he wants he can sue me!".
>
> OTOH, if I send Sam $100 when the app is accepted at the app store Sam
> gets his money and at the end of the year I don't feel guilty. Not to
> mention that I get to deduct the $100 as a business expense! Hey, I'm
> not out much for SDL. Sam got paid. I got a tax deduction. What is
> $100 bucks compared to the actual cost of equipment and time needed to
> develop an iPhone app? Nothing.
>
> Stick with one time fees. People will pay those.
>
> Bob Pendleton
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Sam Lantinga <slouken@...> wrote:
>>> So currently the commercial license for SDL 1.3 on iPhone is $300 per
>>> product, but after looking at the market and the people looking to
>>> develop on iPhone, I'm seriously considering dropping the cost to $100
>>> per product with a discount for multiple products.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> See ya!
>>> --
>>>        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SDL mailing list
>>> SDL@...
>>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://codebad.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> SDL mailing list
>> SDL@...
>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> +-----------------------------------------------------------
> + Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
> + email: Bob@...
> + web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL@...
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>

--
http://codebad.com/
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Bob Pendleton]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler@...> wrote:

>>----- Original Message ----
>
>>From: Bob Pendleton <bob@...>
>>Subject: Re: [SDL] iPhone commercial license costs
>>
>>The first time I noticed the problem I was talking to an experience
>>programmer about parsing techniques and I made the off hand remark
>>that you could write a compiler in Basic if you were masochistic. His
>>reply was the you could not, ever, under any circumstances, write a
>>compiler in Basic. I was shocked down to my knees, but rather than
>>arguing with him I asked why he believed that? His reply was that
>>Basic could not call the OS function that was used to output
>>relocatable object code... That is, the Basic provided by UNIVAC on
>>UNIVAC 1100 series computers running EXEC 8 did not provide a command
>>to output the specific version of relocatable object code understood
>>by the EXEC 8 linker... To him a compiler was a program that called
>>that specific OS function. If it didn't do that, it wasn't a compiler.
>>Notice how strongly attached to details the poor fellow was. To him
>>Basic was not a general idea, or a specification, it was the specific
>>version provided by a specific vendor on a specific type of 36 bit
>>ones complement batch main frame OS. And, of course, a compiler was
>>not a program that translates from one formal language to another. To
>>him a compiler was a program that output relocatable object code in a
>>specific format using a specific operating system call only provided
>>by a single OS on a particular type of 36 bit ones complement computer
>>architecture.
>>
>>He did not last long as a programmer.
>
> Looks to me like he's overly attached to a particular abstraction and
> doesn't understand the details behind it.  If he knew how relocatable
> object code worked on a UNIVAC 1100 series, he would be able to
> write a routine to produce it himself instead of needing the OS to do
> it for him.  :P

LOL! I see your point.

I'm pretty sure I suggested writing code in Basic that would output
code in the correct format. I remember being told that Basic couldn't
*open* that kind of file. EXEC 8 had a lot of weird file types built
into the OS and only programs that used the right system calls could
create them. I remember there was a Fortran binding for the
relocatable code functions and one for Cobol. (Cobol compilers tend to
be written in Cobol.)

>
> Also, I'm a bit confused.  You introduce him as "an experience[d]
> programmer", but then at the end you say he didn't last long.  How am
> I to interpret that?

At the time he had 2 or 3 years full time experience and about the
same doing customer support at the University we went to. He lasted as
a programmer about 3 years after that. His employer made a major move
into UNIX and he was unable to adapt. Wound up working in the training
department.

Bob Pendleton

>
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL@...
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>



--
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
+ email: Bob@...
+ web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[masonwheeler]

>----- Original Message ----

>From: Bob Pendleton <bob@...>
>Subject: Re: [SDL] iPhone commercial license costs
>
>I'm pretty sure I suggested writing code in Basic that would output
>code in the correct format. I remember being told that Basic couldn't
>*open* that kind of file. EXEC 8 had a lot of weird file types built
>into the OS and only programs that used the right system calls could
>create them. I remember there was a Fortran binding for the
>relocatable code functions and one for Cobol. (Cobol compilers tend to
>be written in Cobol.)

Oh wow!  That's annoying! :(  I remember similar issues on the Apple II.
I'm glad modern OSes don't work like that.

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Bob Pendleton]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki@...> wrote:

Donny, I do seem to have an amazing ability to piss you off. OTOH, in
our private emails we seem to get a long. I know  it is possible for
you to read what I write with out getting upset. Please understand
that no matter how you interpret what I write, it is not, and never
will be, intended to demean you in any way.

> I would have accepted a reasoned response from Sam, but your response
> seems almost deliberately obtuse. You picked a pricing model designed
> to invalidate any licensing deal that is invoked each time you sell a
> copy,

How so? I picked a fixed price model which is what is out there. Do
you object to my choice of prices?

> and you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that if someone
> only sells 37 copies, not only can they not justify their licensing
> costs,

That was part of the point. The majority of people selling these apps
are not selling large numbers of them.

Look, multiply the numbers by 10 or even 100 and you still get very
small numbers going to Sam.

> but apparently now we're supposed to believe that people are
> less willing to pay their bill the *less* it is.

It's quite true actually. Especially when it isn't a bill. Pay per
copy license systems work on the honor system. They have to. Unless
the amounts are known to be in the 10s of thousands of dollars the
licensor can not afford to audit the licensee. Without audits, there
is no way to enforce a license deal. That means that the licensor must
simply trust the licensee to send the money that is owed.

When it is a bill things are a little different. Ever worked with
billing? Many people simply ignore bills for less than the cost of a
stamp. Many people ignore bills for amounts smaller than say $10 or
$20. Many businesses know the exact cost of processing a bill, and it
is much more than just the cost of the stamp, and they will not send a
bill for an amount less than the cost of processing it plus a
reasonable profit.

(Yeah, that *is* changing as people adopt online billing and bill payment.)

> The tax deduction is also a totally bunk argument.

It wasn't an argument, it was an observation. At the end of the year
you might find your self feeling very happy to get a small tax
deduction from stuff you bought for your project. I always am. Though
I have to admit that since the Reagan tax incentives for small
business were repealed it is often pointless to even keep track of
small purchases.

During the initial start up phase of a business or a project it is
easy to justify spending small amounts of money on things like
licensing fees. Hey, you wanna build a shelf you gotta buy lumber,
right? Ok, so what happens at the turn of the quarter when you need to
pay Sam. In a big business or even a small business your accountant
will remind you of certain quarterly obligations. Did you tell your
accountant to handle your license fee payments? Oh, your "accountant"
is Quickbooks... And your small business is just you and maybe one
other guy. Do you even notice when the quarter turns?  Not to mention
you don't even have to sign a contract to get SDL so Sam doesn't even
have a good way to find out you are using it.

The state of Texas has a rather large organization designed to remind
businesses of their quarterly obligation to pay sales taxes.
Businesses commonly lie cheat and literally steal to keep from paying
taxes. What is going to remind Sam's customers of their obligation to
pay him? Especially if he doesn't know who they are?

Oh well. If you don't like any of that just consider that it is easier
to get money up front than to collect it before it is due.

Bob Pendleton

>
> *departs the discussion*
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Bob Pendleton <bob@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Donny Viszneki <donny.viszneki@...> wrote:
>>> Some of my friends who have developed for the iphone didn't even come
>>> close to recouping their development costs on their first few apps. Is
>>> there any reason not to license SDL to the end-user instead, and
>>> charge the developer per copy?
>>
>> Yeah, a one time charge is easy to collect and easy to verify. The
>> time and expense of logging all purchases and sending in quarterly, or
>> even, yearly license fees are a royal pain in the ass for the
>> developer and pretty much ensure that Sam will never see most of the
>> money he is due.
>>
>> Let's say I write an iPhone application using SDL and sell 37 copies
>> over the following year. For that I own Sam, say 0.037 USD. Yeah, 3.7
>> cents... hey, 0.1 cent per sale is reasonable for an app that sells
>> for $1 per copy... Ok, let's say Sam charges 1 cent per copy so we owe
>> him a whole 37 cents, the results are the same. At the end of the year
>> I look at that and say, screw "Sam, It isn't enough for me to feel
>> guilty about. If he wants he can sue me!".
>>
>> OTOH, if I send Sam $100 when the app is accepted at the app store Sam
>> gets his money and at the end of the year I don't feel guilty. Not to
>> mention that I get to deduct the $100 as a business expense! Hey, I'm
>> not out much for SDL. Sam got paid. I got a tax deduction. What is
>> $100 bucks compared to the actual cost of equipment and time needed to
>> develop an iPhone app? Nothing.
>>
>> Stick with one time fees. People will pay those.
>>
>> Bob Pendleton
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Sam Lantinga <slouken@...> wrote:
>>>> So currently the commercial license for SDL 1.3 on iPhone is $300 per
>>>> product, but after looking at the market and the people looking to
>>>> develop on iPhone, I'm seriously considering dropping the cost to $100
>>>> per product with a discount for multiple products.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> See ya!
>>>> --
>>>>        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> SDL mailing list
>>>> SDL@...
>>>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://codebad.com/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SDL mailing list
>>> SDL@...
>>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------
>> + Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
>> + email: Bob@...
>> + web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> SDL mailing list
>> SDL@...
>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://codebad.com/
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL@...
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
+ email: Bob@...
+ web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Bob Pendleton]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler@...> wrote:

>>----- Original Message ----
>
>>From: Bob Pendleton <bob@...>
>>Subject: Re: [SDL] iPhone commercial license costs
>>
>>I'm pretty sure I suggested writing code in Basic that would output
>>code in the correct format. I remember being told that Basic couldn't
>>*open* that kind of file. EXEC 8 had a lot of weird file types built
>>into the OS and only programs that used the right system calls could
>>create them. I remember there was a Fortran binding for the
>>relocatable code functions and one for Cobol. (Cobol compilers tend to
>>be written in Cobol.)

>
> Oh wow!  That's annoying! :(  I remember similar issues on the Apple II.
> I'm glad modern OSes don't work like that.

Yeah... I have to agree with that.

Since I now remember more about the conversation, I will continue to
beat the dead beast...

I also suggested that a compiler written in Basic could output
assembly code. Many compilers in the past have done that. He didn't
accept such a program as a compiler. He wasn't sure what it was, but
it was not a compiler. Since I wrote a compiler that generated FORTRAN
for my senior project I suffered a serious brain lock up when he said
that.

Bob Pendleton

>
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL@...
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>



--
+-----------------------------------------------------------
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
+ email: Bob@...
+ web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Sam Lantinga-4]

Please take the dead beast outside.  I'm trying to get good feedback
on iPhone pricing, not Cobol compilers. :)

Thanks!

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Bob Pendleton <bob@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Mason Wheeler <masonwheeler@...> wrote:
>>>----- Original Message ----
>>
>>>From: Bob Pendleton <bob@...>
>>>Subject: Re: [SDL] iPhone commercial license costs
>>>
>>>I'm pretty sure I suggested writing code in Basic that would output
>>>code in the correct format. I remember being told that Basic couldn't
>>>*open* that kind of file. EXEC 8 had a lot of weird file types built
>>>into the OS and only programs that used the right system calls could
>>>create them. I remember there was a Fortran binding for the
>>>relocatable code functions and one for Cobol. (Cobol compilers tend to
>>>be written in Cobol.)
>
>>
>> Oh wow!  That's annoying! :(  I remember similar issues on the Apple II.
>> I'm glad modern OSes don't work like that.
>
> Yeah... I have to agree with that.
>
> Since I now remember more about the conversation, I will continue to
> beat the dead beast...
>
> I also suggested that a compiler written in Basic could output
> assembly code. Many compilers in the past have done that. He didn't
> accept such a program as a compiler. He wasn't sure what it was, but
> it was not a compiler. Since I wrote a compiler that generated FORTRAN
> for my senior project I suffered a serious brain lock up when he said
> that.
>
> Bob Pendleton
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SDL mailing list
>> SDL@...
>> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> +-----------------------------------------------------------
> + Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer
> + email: Bob@...
> + web: www.TheGrumpyProgrammer.com
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL@...
> http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
>

--
        -Sam Lantinga, Founder and President, Galaxy Gameworks LLC
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[GMScribe]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

I've already provided my opinion to Sam but ultimately I see it like this:

Small business or lone developer may not sell many initial apps, to them a one off licence fee rather than per app is more appealing, or the ability to pay pro-rata as income from apps is received.

College/University have to budget for licences. Some may wish to release commercially don't forget. To budget it a fixed amount also suits them, however approval from higher-ups who struggle to understand the advantage of paying for something that to them looks like a bunch of confusing words is difficult, and so again a pro-rata agreement would be idea, i.e. only pay if it goes commercial and makes a minimum profit.

Cheers guys

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[Vittorio G.]

how about making the sdl licence free for free applications and $100 for commercial ones?
besides i see no big deal to use the lgpl licence and release the source code

bye
Vittorio

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Scribe <ali_lowe@...> wrote:

I've already provided my opinion to Sam but ultimately I see it like this:

Small business or lone developer may not sell many initial apps, to them a one off licence fee rather than per app is more appealing, or the ability to pay pro-rata as income from apps is received.

College/University have to budget for licences. Some may wish to release commercially don't forget. To budget it a fixed amount also suits them, however approval from higher-ups who struggle to understand the advantage of paying for something that to them looks like a bunch of confusing words is difficult, and so again a pro-rata agreement would be idea, i.e. only pay if it goes commercial and makes a minimum profit.

Cheers guys

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

--

Joan Crawford  - "I, Joan Crawford, I believe in the dollar. Everything I earn, I spend."
_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[GMScribe]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

My only worry as a new developer would be, what if my application doesn't make $150(apple+tax)? If I had payed for a one off licence I would think well I'll just try again. However I would be seriously worried that my second app would flop and I'd lose another $100.

For that reason I'd either like to only pay once, or ideally pay once my app has earned over a certain threshold. If I could guarantee I wouldn't make a loss via this method, then I'm not as fussy about the actual licence price as if the application is profitable even the current $300 seems reasonable. Like most developers, I'm very happy to share my profit with those who made it possible, on the other hand I don't want others to profit from my loss.

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[jahc]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

I would pay a $100usd one off fee for a 2d license. Maybe the 3d version could cost more?

I have to buy a second hand macbook, and I dont know if Ill make enough on my apps to pay it off to be honest.. let alone the developer program fee.. and then I need to rope in a graphics artist or two for small royaltys, which will make it take even longer to pay off. At 50 sales a month at 2 usd each.. sdl for $300 usd per app is definitely unrealistic. But I quite like SDL, so dont take that the wrong way. Im posting because I want to buy it!

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

[GMScribe]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

jahc wrote:

I would pay a $100usd one off fee for a 2d license. Maybe the 3d version could cost more?

I have to buy a second hand macbook, and I dont know if Ill make enough on my apps to pay it off to be honest.. let alone the developer program fee.. and then I need to rope in a graphics artist or two for small royaltys, which will make it take even longer to pay off. At 50 sales a month at 2 usd each.. sdl for $300 usd per app is definitely unrealistic. But I quite like SDL, so dont take that the wrong way. Im posting because I want to buy it!

I agree, though there isn't a 3D version!

_______________________________________________
SDL mailing list
SDL@...
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org