Thanks for the warning. After spending months testing a pending upgrade only to find out that in order to finally use the software that I have been beta testing is going to cost me $200.00 makes me unhappy. I think this is a cheap shot considering that there was never any prior mention of the new price.

I have a real hard time with this since this is supposed to a "major version change" and since the attachment blocking feature only works if the Keyword filter is set to not quarantine messages.

At this point in time SF v2.o is missing what I would call a "major version change".

While I love the product, spending an extra $200-400 on it will take considerable thought.

I think it really comes down to this.

As a customer i'm not really too impressed, I just bought the $400usd version not to long ago (Sept 5th) and already I have to shell out another $200usd to upgrade to the new version while all along I had help support the beta program found a few bugs, helps with new features etc etc. I have to agree with george, hwoever I can't confirm that whole keyword quaruntine problem as I had given up on that long ago and I juse use a sql script. Sorry, but I couldn't wait forever, and if that problem is still in the current release, that makes Roberto's case even worse.

However, We all know and it's obvious Roberto has worked his ass off to get this product going and going well. He deserves to be paid. But this does apear/sound to be kind of a money grab, i'm sorry, I just feel that, having only owned the software for not even 6 months.

I think an easy solution here to keep everyone happy is to provide your 1 year maintenance plan to people who purchased the $400 product and start it as of their purchase date?

Roberto -

I've been a registered user for just over a year, and I feel that your upgrade policy is quite acceptable.  I have looked at other products - many subscription based - and SPAMFilter ISP is a bargain.  Also, I appreciate the fact that you are willing to accept "real-world" feedback from users, and implement changes that are beneficial, it a TIMELY manner. 

Your implementation of attachment filtering last month helped to save my users from a lot of potential grief. We were receiving 400-500 copies of virus infected email an hour... (for a company of only about 100), and SPAMFilter ISP caught over 98% of the infected messages.  I (as the IT manager) didn't have to worry about a user ignoring policy about opening attachments, or worry about other failures in my virus protection protocols, and that is worth the $200 upgrade alone.

I can understand why those users that purchased just within the last few months are balking at the upgrade fee... maybe a pro-rated upgrade for users that purchased within the last XX months would be appropriate - however you'll have to decide on a cut-off point, and there will always be people upset, no matter what you decide.

I'll be sending my payment for upgrade later today or tomorrow... SPAMFilter ISP absolutely worth it!  Thank you for providing such a versatile and well supported product to help us do our jobs easier.

Ric

I just purchased my copy on 11/07/03, and was really waiting for the Bayesian and the ability to block attachments.  As is, the software requires much manual input.  It can't differentiate between spams and legitimate e-mails without your own set of keywords, and even then it doesn’t work all that well.  If  you go and do a search on keyword “new version” on the forum, you see I’ve been asking for the version with these new feature back in November.  I can’t justify hitting up my manager for another $200 for a good, but incomplete product.  I think I should I receive this new version free of charge, it has even been 6 months yet.

V

If you are using the annual Software Maintenance agreement model where users get one year of free upgrades, it would make sense that all users that bought the older version within the last 365 days should be entitled to the 2.0 release and all future releases up to their 1 yr aniversary.  And from there pay a blanket fee annually to maintain their support and free upgrades.  $120 would seems fair and reasonable to me.

However the new $200 "upgrade" seems to be icing on the cake from anyone who had purchased the product within the last year.  Other proprietary software companies that I deal with who use a similar Maintenance model provide new versions (even 1.x to 2.x) free as part of their Software Agreement as long as that customer's annual maintenance was in effect.  If you are going with the Maint contract model, then get rid of the "upgrade" fee model.  It should be one or the other, but not both.

As many users were doing a considerable amount of bug testing in thier own live environments.  I think that there are quite a few loyal users that feel they had a unique relationship with this product's development who now feel slighty alienated by this new fee and subscription stucture suddenly dropped on them wiithout warning.  I am sure some would have appreciated it if you had announced your intention earlier.  Likewise from reading other posts here in the forum it sounds like some users are going to start looking at other options too.  That is certainly their choice, whereas some of us will still continue to use the product.

For me $120/year is fair and I would certainly be willing to support an annual agreement, but it would only seem fair to do so after the initial year from the original purchase date has lasped and to do away with this idea of a "upgrade" fee.  

My recommendation:
-Get rid of the idea of an upgrade fee and go directly into the Maint Contract model.
-The 2.x release is free to all licensed users who bought within the last 365 days. 
-Licensed users who bought before that should be able to start a new $120 1 year maint contract immediately upon payment and get the 2.x release with it.
-Unlicensed beta and trial users pay the full retail cost.

Thanks for all your hard work Roberto.  I think everyone agrees a fair and equitable fee structure is beneficial for all.

Cut the price in 1/2 for all current users ($100) that have been with you through the long beta cycle.

New owners of 6 months or less... free upgrade

Make absolutely clear to everyone that the software now runs on a 1 year maintenance plan and to expect to pay for the next cycle regardless of version.

This gives everyone time to get used to the idea and prepare/justify software budgets.... a really big deal in these economic times.

Alan has the right idea.

I have no problem with the annual maintenance contract. This is how I market my proprietary e-commerce software package and this is also how I normally purchase my software whenever it is available. Unfortunately when I purchased SF in May 2003 there was never any mention of it being an option. The only thing I recall concerning upgrading was in an email from Roberto in April just before I purchased SF and in the email it stated

“The only difference between the licensed and eval versions are version indicators in the program itself. When registering it, you will be able to download at your leisure any registered builds we release, and yes, you will have to install the new EXEs to replace the eval ones.”

This statement led me to believe that upgrades were part of the package. This is what caused me to get upset over the new cost. Because of this I did not expect to have to spend more $$$ on SF.

Being a software developer myself I understand the need to increase prices when significant additions are added to a product. Because of this I feel paying the $120 maintenance contract on the anniversary of my purchase is fair.

g