jovball wrote:To RedGate management:
Promises made and not kept are bad for business. It makes people question the integrity of the company.
I work as an application architect for a government agency. Some of our developers have inquired about purchasing RedGate tools. That will definitely not be happening now.
To anyone else who thinks that promises should mean something:
Vote with your wallets, by all appearances, that is the only language that RedGate understands.
JDelekto wrote:Was the word 'promise' ever used in any of their communication or was it all implied by a community who made such an assumption because they said they would continue to provide a 'free' version of Reflector?
NickCraver wrote:JDelekto wrote:Was the word 'promise' ever used in any of their communication or was it all implied by a community who made such an assumption because they said they would continue to provide a 'free' version of Reflector?
So you're arguing that since they never explicitly use the word "promise" it's all ok? That just turns it into a lie to the community, I'm failing to see how that's any better.
NickCraver wrote:Let's be clear on something, .Net Reflector was free for 8 years before Red Gate got a hold of it. Yes there has always been a time-bomb, but why was it there? It was so that Lutz Roeder didn't have to support many versions at once, not used as a ransom device to extract money from as many as possible whenever Red Gate chose to.[/b]
JDelekto wrote:Which is probably covered by the 50 licenses Red Gate donated.
JDelekto wrote:Perhaps their announcement was to notify others that they would begin charging for the product and the product did not yet force an upgrade which asked them to pay.
JDelekto wrote:I believe they did not lie and had intented to whole-heartedly continue to offer a free product to the community. However, the product did not "pay for itself" as they had expected and for them to support it, it would cost money.
There was no lie to the community and they have been pretty up front about their new intentions.
mb wrote:... it's the broken promise or breach of trust that's causing the venom in the negative feedback.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests