Topic: A little rant about AutoDesk Exchange

[ChrisCarlson]

If you as the developer set your app as free in the Exchange, please do NOT cripple it by requiring registration and or a license key to utilize he full function.

In this example I'll talk about

"BatchInEditor" By CADManagerTools



It's listed as Free and offers no advice or guidance that the app is a "trial" and that unless you purchase you can only edit 3 documents per session. Please fix your app or revise the description.



/end rant

[irneb]

I'm with you on the fact that something needs to state what it is and/or requires, or that if it states something it needs to provide what it states. I do not believe everything needs to be free though, if a programmer spends his time on making it - then he's allowed to ask for compensation in exchange for its use.

Unfortunately this thing seems to be the norm these days: a form of bait to get people to use the app and only later find that if they want to continue using it (or use it in anything but a test scenario) they need to pay. Many an AppStore "free" app does this too, and equally heats my blood.

If it's shareware, then it should state thus - and have its restrictions spelled out (i.e. only usable for a limited time and/or volume). If it's "freeware" then it should not charge for its use. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be used correctly in all cases.

I'm fine with something like a "lite" version as freeware with some omissions in its functionality (if it's clearly indicated thus) with a "full" commercial version also available. And I think it should have been done this way for the addon you're using as example if not listed as shareware.

[kruuger]

If you as the developer set your app as free in the Exchange, please do NOT cripple it by requiring registration and or a license key to utilize he full function.

In this example I'll talk about

"BatchInEditor" By CADManagerTools



It's listed as Free and offers no advice or guidance that the app is a "trial" and that unless you purchase you can only edit 3 documents per session. Please fix your app or revise the description.



/end rant

i always leave negative review. maybe next time they stop doing this.
it is annoying. some kind of cheating for me.
romek

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm with you on the fact that something needs to state what it is and/or requires, or that if it states something it needs to provide what it states. I do not believe everything needs to be free though, if a programmer spends his time on making it - then he's allowed to ask for compensation in exchange for its use.

Unfortunately this thing seems to be the norm these days: a form of bait to get people to use the app and only later find that if they want to continue using it (or use it in anything but a test scenario) they need to pay. Many an AppStore "free" app does this too, and equally heats my blood.

If it's shareware, then it should state thus - and have its restrictions spelled out (i.e. only usable for a limited time and/or volume). If it's "freeware" then it should not charge for its use. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be used correctly in all cases.

I'm fine with something like a "lite" version as freeware with some omissions in its functionality (if it's clearly indicated thus) with a "full" commercial version also available. And I think it should have been done this way for the addon you're using as example if not listed as shareware.

I have no qualms with purchasing software or donating to a freeware if it some how makes my job easier which in turns makes the company I'm working for more money. However this bait and switch is annoying and devious.

Although it appears to be poor development as the registration key is free, the process of email a request with pertinent info is simply buried in the help file.

[MP]

In a word "surprises", unless in the form of an unexpected bonus are really, really bad. If an app is cripple ware, it should say plainly in the initial advert, not something you discover once installed. It's a really stupid, backfiring strategy.

[irneb]

I have no qualms with purchasing software or donating to a freeware if it some how makes my job easier which in turns makes the company I'm working for more money. However this bait and switch is annoying and devious.

So we're in exact agreement. No-one should expect everything for free, but once something says it's free (without further qualification) then it should be free in total, not some hidden back-track on what was promised. If it's not fully free then it should state thus.

Although it appears to be poor development as the registration key is free, the process of email a request with pertinent info is simply buried in the help file.

This actually scares me more than simply a "free" software which requires later purchase & activation. It sounds more like a form of phishing.

It's a really stupid, backfiring strategy.

+1 ... at least to those who do think about it before they then go and purchase and/or give their personal info away. Unfortunately there's quite a few suckers falling for these things, else they'd all quickly disappear.

[Jeff H]

Where I come from that is usually called "trial" or "free version has limited functionality."

[Matt__W]

Am I the only one that read it as "BitchinEditor"?      

[BlackBox]

FWIW -

As one who has a small handful of apps published at Autodesk Exchange, I completely agree that Free should mean Free, with no strings... While only one of my 'live' apps are Free at this time (I have several others coming), the rest of my apps are still only $1.00 at this point (of which I only see +/- $0.60 after PayPal's cut).

The issue being noted in the OP could have been easily mitigated, had the app developer instead simply selected the Trial option, instead of Free... If you've not already done so, you might consider sending them an email about this.

Cheers

[mjfarrell]

I must agree.

This sort of bait and switch or 'gotcha' approach is more than a little annoying.

There are far too many "sign up for FREE trial" nonsense that want your credit card or other information
upfront, that I refuse to engage in. As what they are counting on is that you will forget to cancel within the set time limit
and then simply start to charge you the monthly or annual fees.  That sort of devious business model
is no way to endear your company, service, or product to most.

[BlackBox]

This sort of bait and switch or 'gotcha' approach is more than a little annoying.

If the customer contact is somehow insufficient, negative feedback posted to their app page at Autodesk Exchange should fend off unsuspecting recipients.

There are far too many "sign up for FREE trial" nonsense that want your credit card or other information
upfront, that I refuse to engage in. As what they are counting on is that you will forget to cancel within the set time limit
and then simply start to charge you the monthly or annual fees.  That sort of devious business model
is no way to endear your company, service, or product to most.

While costly on the developer side, thankfully, this level of 'transaction intimacy' is precluded by the use of PayPal for Autodesk Exchange Apps. 

Cheers

[mjfarrell]

'transaction intimacy'

Cheers

Such a polite way of saying getting s[&ew*d.

[BlackBox]

'transaction intimacy'

Cheers

Such a polite way of saying getting s[&ew*d.

I meant it more in the context of level of detail one willingly offers the would-be offender(s)... You're not forced to subscribe to their services, you seek them out, you willingly pay for it, and then have buyer's remorse after they've had their way with you. 

[LE3]

Got curios, and went to their web place, and it is somehow clear in there that their tools are marked as 'freeware'... maybe on the AE place there is no option for this type.... still, they need to add a comment line on their tool description that it is not a 'free' app.

[Locke]

+/- $0.60 after PayPal's cut.

Flat fee or percentage?