New licensing system proposal and discussion

[Jeremy Collake]

I've long needed a massive licensing system overhaul, but it has been difficult to come up with a licensing system that does the following:

1. Generates revenue. At least 1 in 500 active users should pay for the software (preferrably more ;o).
2. Keeps the software free enough to encourage word of mouth advertising and market infiltration.

Thanks to some great suggestions from JWvanLohuizen, I am developing a new plan that helps to further segregate specific market segments (i.e. game users vs. normal home users). In this thread I will post discussion as I plan this new licensing system.

In the end, there should be more incentive for users to purchase than there is now. However, that incentive will be in a form other than nags.

More details to come ...

[horizon]

In general I can see two main types of possible deployment:
1. Home/laptop users
These might or might not generate a revenue and the plan is pretty straightforward.

2. Enterprise/server users.
This applies especially to Terminal Services or Citrix (=where the application usage scheme is exactly the same to laptos. Maybe even worse as many of applciations are differnt reporting/business inteligence. Many of those apps have got really bad design, so while accessing db, they do not hesitate to run queries like "select * from *" and than filter the output on views... On laptop, this wouldn't be an issue as user would kill just his own laptop, but on terminal server, it's a huge problem, affecting 15-150 use4rs at once.)

These are the ones, that should generate revenue. On the other hand, customers (=not admins, but people, who make the decissions) have to understand, what kind of savings, this can bring.)

So these...

ProBalance dynamic priority optimization
CPU throttling (new)
Default process priorities
Default process CPU affinities
Gaming mode
Foreground boosting
Limit allowed program instances
Disallow programs from running
Log all programs run
System responsiveness graph
Stand-alone core engine
Available in x86-32 and x86-64 builds
Extremely low RAM and CPU use
Much more...

...are definitely not the reasons, which could persuade the manager to spend the money and have PL installed on servers.

[Jeremy Collake]

ProBalance dynamic priority optimization
CPU throttling (new)
Default process priorities
Default process CPU affinities
Gaming mode
Foreground boosting
Limit allowed program instances
Disallow programs from running
Log all programs run
System responsiveness graph
Stand-alone core engine
Available in x86-32 and x86-64 builds
Extremely low RAM and CPU use
Much more...
...are definitely not the reasons, which could persuade the manager to spend the money and have PL installed on servers.

That is a good point. I am increasing the amount of time I spend on marketing, and I'll be changing this list soon. I am going to start targeting terminal servers more, and have a good plan for future development in that area. I will try to make the case for the ROI of Process Lasso.

It seems there are more and more competitors in this field. Fortunately, I've not seen any competitors that match Process Lasso in features, performance, compatibility, or ease of use. In fact, most competing applications I've tried don't even work right when I go to test them.

Marketing is the key.. that's for sure. I spend so much time in product development that I neglect this key area. No more, I just can't afford to operate this way any longer.