This is not really about an individual making a profit. Mentioning this is to exemplify the economical unsustainability of the situation and to point out that a devaluation of the license is necessary in order to assign a proper value to the received service. Using software comes with a practical value for the user. This value needs to be reflected in the economical value of the license. Without such an assignment the economics would favour abuse and punish the customer who does not take advantage of it. So this is not a problem of the individual, but of the group and the foundational relationship between service provider and customer which needs to be fairly weighing all legitimate interests against each other.I have no stake in this either way but I find it very odd to see a developer/relations person consistently bring up this point of their customer potentially making money from reselling a license. You picked the initial price, the customer paid that price, and, since you do offer transfers, they are allowed to transfer it. If some dingus was willing to pay 2x, 5x, or 10x the regular price for a resale that’s not really any of your business, unless you preemptively included incredibly anti-consumer (my opinion) terms in your licensing contract, lol. Just seems like a really… petty thing to continue pointing to.
Something that seems to be not commonly understood regarding models with paid updates for devaluation of software licenses is that those are implicitly also a transfer fee. If you don't update your software, it loses resale value which has to be offset by either the seller or the buyer. This offset has exactly the same effect as a transfer fee. The only difference is that with the paid update model, you also need to pay if you just want to keep using the software.
Please think about it for a while and if you still feel the need for discussion afterwards, I'll be listening and be open-minded.
Statistics: Posted by atell — Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:28 am