Prelude To Innovations in Motion

"fair" is not really a word that i would use to describe what they've done. i'd be more apt to call it somewhere along the lines of deceitful since the impression was there was to be a pro (paid) version with all the bells and whistles and the free version would keep being as is. in addtion to that, it sucks that this "new" version of 3.0 isn't really all that damn interesting.

Did you even read Mena's post at sixapart.com? There is no need to 'hack' the free version as it is based on the honor system. By the terms of the license you are bound to one author and three blogs but from what I can tell, there is no technical reason you can't have more.

I can't see that they have done anything less than they have promised. There will be free versions as well as pay versions. It isn't reasonable to expect anyone to write a license that is liked by all. As Mena said, they expect it to cover 85% of their users.

They have put major effort into producing something that, apparently, many people love. How is it wrong to wish to be compensated for this product?

It’s sad to see people complain. You are using their software. Not yours, or a community project, or an open source product, something THEY created. They have every right to charge for the product. You should be thankful they are even offering a free product.

Who are these people? Is this the next "Peter Jackson's The Hobbit"?

"It's sad to see people complain" ...

What I see is a lot of people saying that MT 3 is no longer a viable option and asking for alternatives. The complaints IMO aren't about a decision to charge, but the structure of that charge itself and about the apparent major shift in philosophy of the company.

They're free to charge what they'd like, but let's put things in perspective. I've got an MT install with multiple blogs done for my non-profit college. We used it to replace one very bulky printed report and to add interactivity to that report. The multiple blogs are used because of the complexity of the structure. Under 2.6 this was free and I saved taxpayers a few hundred dollars. Under 3, I'd pay almost $700.

By comparison, that $700 is $200 more than Adobe charges us for the entire Creative Suite Premium, including Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat Professional ...

So, yes, I've got options. And the best one is to just continue with the MT 2.6 install until it breaks.

Comparing MT 3 to Adobe Creative Suite Premium, well, it's a no brainer. I use the Adobe product on a daily basis. The MT install gets minimal use and is just one small component of our Web site. There is no way whatsoever to justify the cost of the license we would be requested to pay.

You are correct, they do have every right to charge for their product. They've worked hard on it.

I think the reality is, that they will find a large portion of their base will move to competing products or simply violate the licensing structure.

We've all got decisions to make. And I'm sure Rich and Mena found this to be a very tough one. On the other hand, it wasn't very difficult for me to decide against keeping QuarkXpress current. The tool just wasn't worth the cost.

In this case, it's likely that Six Apart won't see revenue from me or my campus. The licenses just don't make sense for my personal needs nor for my employers'.

My personal install of 2.x involves three blogs, one for my rec hockey team, one for my wife and one to share cute things about our toddler. Now, if everyone on my team were to be an author, that would be a $189 license. Sorry, just not worth it. The truth of the matter is that if I was the only author on that blog and one each on the other two blogs we'd qualify for a $100 license.

Well, $100 isn't worth it for something that just there for fun.

Call it what complaining if you want.

As far as I'm concerned it's simply feedback. They have offered to sell me (and lots of other people) software. What I'm reading is people saying "no thanks."

I think that it costs of such money.

p.s It is necessary to pay for all :)