Lasso 8.6 licensing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
57 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Erik Vandermey - WebCentrix, Inc.
On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:

> The average cost of a Perpetual license ranges like this:
>
>   No discounts for upgrading (new 8.6 licenses)
>   $110-500 per instance depending on volume

Before pricing was released, I was budgeting ~$400-600 per license (unlimited sites) for my servers. Now with the
license + instance (site) limit, that ranges upwards to $2000-$5000 per server (before discounts). I may just bite the bullet and upgrade one license and just live with 8.5.6 for the rest of them as "legacy" sites/servers.

I'm sure the "live with 8.5.x" scenario has become very popular among those of us who provide hosting services.

> The average cost of a Master license ranges like this:
>
>    No discounts apply for upgrading to any Master license.
>    $8-10/month per 8.6 instance depending on volume
>
>    All updates are free.
>
> Am I missing any hidden costs?  If not, that seems fair and reasonable to me.

This model "imposes" a "Lasso tax" of $8-10 per month where no tax currently exists. Some hosting providers charge as little as $15 per month for a Lasso site, does that $8-10 per month seem fair and reasonable now?

If I jumped to this licensing model, I would have to roll out a completely different hosting model to accommodate the monthly costs. I would only do this for Lasso 9 as I think the performance increase over 8.x is the only way I could justify the additional cost.

Then there are the free alternatives.

It's very hard to compete with free.

Regards,
---
Erik Van-der-Mey • [hidden email] • (AIM/iChat: [hidden email]) • http://webcentrix.net
WebCentrix, Inc. • Web Hosting/Co-Location/Dedicated Servers  • Kerio Connect/Control Reseller







#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Marc Pinnell-3
In reply to this post by Chris Wik-4
Agreed! I realize that the new LassoSoft sees 8.6 as a new product, but I think that 90% of the community views it as nothing more than a long over set of bug fixes.

Marc


On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Chris Wik wrote:

> I have a very strong opinion that the Lasso 8.6 licensing needs to stay the same as 8.5, with a fixed upgrade price. Ie. no per-instance (Lasso Site) licensing and no monthly subscriptions, just a one-time upgrade fee.
>
> If the model changes, a large majority of Lasso 8.5 customers are not going to upgrade. Us included - we can't afford to - many of our smaller accounts pay less than $15 per month, and I know this is true for other hosting companies too. We would be losing money on those accounts by upgrading. And I'm not just talking about hosting customers, I've spoken to many of my customers who run their own 8.5 servers and they too will not be upgrading, due to the increased cost and complexity.
>
> I think that's a real shame, because we would all have ponied up $199 (+- 100) for a plain and simple 8.6 upgrade which fixed some long standing bugs.
>
> LassoSoft, I implore you, change the 8.6 licensing ASAP. Do what you like with 9, but don't change the 8 model.
>
> If others on this list agree, please voice your support, so LassoSoft can properly judge the demand from their loyal clients.
>
> --
> Chris Wik
> Anu Internet Services Ltd
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

Marc Pinnell
1027 Design
PO Box 990872
Redding, CA 96099-0872
530.941.4706
fax: 866.232.5300
www.1027Design.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3



#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Ke Carlton-3
As is confirmed here:
http://www.lassosoft.com/Lasso-8_6-Release-Features-and-Fixes

Pretty much all fixes...

Ke

On 18 March 2011 15:13, Marc Pinnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agreed! I realize that the new LassoSoft sees 8.6 as a new product, but I think that 90% of the community views it as nothing more than a long over set of bug fixes.
>
> Marc

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speed Tests

Brad Lindsay-2
In reply to this post by decorior
On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Deco Rior wrote:
> Lastly, I had commented privately about the speed tests when Lasso 9 was released, but since it was not changed I am adding it. The speed tests are very misleading since both the Ruby and Python numbers are based on old versions. A more up to date comparison might cause Sean to ponder about the positioning of Lasso in the market.

Quick note on this. Python's latest version is 3.x and when 3.0 was released it was *slower* than 2.5 (I'm not sure if this is still the case.) Python has continued the 2.x development, release a 2.6 and, recently, even a 2.7. It might be good to get some updates on that. As for Ruby, most places are just beginning to go the 1.9.x route, so I think the comparison with 1.8.7 is fair.

Overall, though, +1 for numbers with the latest versions of Python and Ruby.

Brad
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speed Tests

jasonhuck
Another way of looking at it is that since Lasso 9 is still very much
in flux and out there on the bleeding edge, it's only fair to compare
it to the latest available beta/bleeding edge/advanced versions of the
other languages as well.

- jason



On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Brad Lindsay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Deco Rior wrote:
>> Lastly, I had commented privately about the speed tests when Lasso 9 was released, but since it was not changed I am adding it. The speed tests are very misleading since both the Ruby and Python numbers are based on old versions. A more up to date comparison might cause Sean to ponder about the positioning of Lasso in the market.
>
> Quick note on this. Python's latest version is 3.x and when 3.0 was released it was *slower* than 2.5 (I'm not sure if this is still the case.) Python has continued the 2.x development, release a 2.6 and, recently, even a 2.7. It might be good to get some updates on that. As for Ruby, most places are just beginning to go the 1.9.x route, so I think the comparison with 1.8.7 is fair.
>
> Overall, though, +1 for numbers with the latest versions of Python and Ruby.
>
> Brad
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>
>

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Lee Pallat
In reply to this post by Chris Wik-4
I've been following the recent developments at LassoSoft with an eye  
toward revitalizing that side of our business (offering Lasso 9) and  
better supporting our existing customers, ie.  upgrading our existing  
servers to 8.6.  At first glance the new pricing model seemed fine.  
When I see the word "instance" I always think Virtual Instance.  In  
this case, however, it appears that LassoSoft would like us to pay  
hundreds of dollars per month (or as Chris has analyzed, thousands of  
dollars, one-time) so that we can finally have long overdue bug fixes.

While I fully support and appreciate the efforts of the new Lasso  
team, we will not be upgrading under this pricing model.

Lee Pallat
Director of Sales and Client Services
digital.forest - http://www.forest.net
206.838.1630 x3019
206.838.3749 fax










#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

stevepiercy
In reply to this post by Chris Wik-4
On 3/18/11 at 3:55 PM, [hidden email] (Chris Wik) pronounced:

>On 18.03.2011, at 15:35, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>
>>The average cost of a Perpetual license ranges like this:
>>
>>No discounts for upgrading (new 8.6 licenses)
>>$110-500 per instance depending on volume
>
>A new license for 8.5 was $650, right? With 40 sites defined
>(eg. an average shared hosting server), that works out to
>$16.25 per site - for a perpetual, non-expiring license.

I don't know how it is possible to run that many Lasso sites
without the server constantly crashing.

Do you deploy one Lasso site per virtual host?  If so, would it
be possible to ask customers to combine their websites under a
single Lasso site?

I don't recall how much a new license was, but my last paid
upgrade was $249 over 3 years ago.  So that would make the per
instance cost even less, say ~$6.

>To get an equivalent 8.6 or 9 server with a Perpetual License,
>we're looking at 2 x 25 instance licenses, which is $5198
>(CAD), or $103.96 per site. That is an absolutely massive
>increase from $16.25 (US).

Assuming you upgrade 8.5->8.6, you pay only 30% of the 8.6
license, or
~$1560 for 2 x 25 instances, or ~$31 per instance.

For commercial software that I depend on, I pay for upgrades
every 1-2 years.  3 years is a long time to keep commercial
software around without upgrading and an eternity without
updating.  So every 1-2 years pay ~$31 per instance, versus the
previous ~$6 per instance.

>>The average cost of a Master license ranges like this:
>>
>>No discounts apply for upgrading to any Master license.
>>$8-10/month per 8.6 instance depending on volume
>>
>>All updates are free.
>
>With the Hosting Provider model, 40 instances would cost us
>$9.975 CAD per month per instance. If we estimate the useful
>lifetime of a perpetual license is 3 years (conservative), then
>the equivalent price of a leased instance license works out at
>$359.10 over the 3 years. Again, a massive increase from $16.25.

So for your volume:
* The Master License would be $8/month per 8.6 instance, or
~$100-200 over 1-2 years.
* The Hosting Provider model would be about $120-240 per
instance over 1-2 years.
* Another option would be the perpetual unlimited license for
$6000.  I imagine you have at least 50 VMs, or 50 Lasso
licenses, so that breaks down to $120 over 1-2 years, which is
less than the $249 8.5 upgrade fee I paid.  Adjust for actual
numbers, but let's use 50 licenses for argument's sake.

>Do you agree with my calculations above? Do you still agree
>that it's fair and reasonable?

Your calculations are correct based on your assumptions, but our
assumptions differ slightly.  In any case, pricing is higher (or
even lower).  It depends on volume.

I also see that the old licensing was dirt cheap and doomed LassoSoft.

There has to be some middle ground that works.  I think it is
going to come down to each individual that does not neatly fit
into a given pricing model to engage in negotiations directly
with the new LassoSoft.

--steve

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder              
Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speed Tests

stevepiercy
In reply to this post by jasonhuck
As well as using compilers and interpreters for all languages.

But really who makes a decision about languages based only on
the speed of code execution?  Compared to other criteria for web
application development, speed of code execution has little relevance.

--steve


On 3/18/11 at 11:35 AM, [hidden email] (Jason Huck) pronounced:

>Another way of looking at it is that since Lasso 9 is still very much
>in flux and out there on the bleeding edge, it's only fair to compare
>it to the latest available beta/bleeding edge/advanced versions of the
>other languages as well.
>
>- jason
>
>
>
>On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Brad Lindsay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Deco Rior wrote:
>>> Lastly, I had commented privately about the speed tests when Lasso 9 was
>released, but since it was not changed I am adding it. The
>speed tests are very misleading since both the Ruby and Python
>numbers are based on old versions. A more up to date comparison
>might cause Sean to ponder about the positioning of Lasso in
>the market.
>>
>>Quick note on this. Python's latest version is 3.x and when 3.0 was released it
>was *slower* than 2.5 (I'm not sure if this is still the case.)
>Python has continued the 2.x development, release a 2.6 and,
>recently, even a 2.7. It might be good to get some updates on
>that. As for Ruby, most places are just beginning to go the
>1.9.x route, so I think the comparison with 1.8.7 is fair.
>>
>>Overall, though, +1 for numbers with the latest versions of Python and Ruby.
>>
>>Brad
>>#############################################################
>>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>> the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>
>#############################################################
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder              
Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Ke Carlton-3
In reply to this post by stevepiercy
Again, no it wouldn't. The $6000 license could only be run on a single
OS / VM accordingly to the other thread.

And seriously, what system is going to run happily with more that a
dozen Lasso instances?

If so, the model is broken — otherwise someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Ke

On 18 March 2011 16:30, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> * Another option would be the perpetual unlimited license for $6000.  I
> imagine you have at least 50 VMs, or 50 Lasso licenses, so that breaks down
> to $120 over 1-2 years, which is less than the $249 8.5 upgrade fee I paid.
>  Adjust for actual numbers, but let's use 50 licenses for argument's sake.

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speed Tests

jasonhuck
In reply to this post by stevepiercy
Agreed. For web apps, proper asset management techniques will have a
far more significant impact on performance.

- jason




On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> As well as using compilers and interpreters for all languages.
>
> But really who makes a decision about languages based only on the speed of
> code execution?  Compared to other criteria for web application development,
> speed of code execution has little relevance.
>
> --steve
>
>
> On 3/18/11 at 11:35 AM, [hidden email] (Jason Huck) pronounced:
>
>> Another way of looking at it is that since Lasso 9 is still very much
>> in flux and out there on the bleeding edge, it's only fair to compare
>> it to the latest available beta/bleeding edge/advanced versions of the
>> other languages as well.
>>
>> - jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Brad Lindsay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Deco Rior wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, I had commented privately about the speed tests when Lasso 9 was
>>
>> released, but since it was not changed I am adding it. The speed tests are
>> very misleading since both the Ruby and Python numbers are based on old
>> versions. A more up to date comparison might cause Sean to ponder about the
>> positioning of Lasso in the market.
>>>
>>> Quick note on this. Python's latest version is 3.x and when 3.0 was
>>> released it
>>
>> was *slower* than 2.5 (I'm not sure if this is still the case.) Python has
>> continued the 2.x development, release a 2.6 and, recently, even a 2.7. It
>> might be good to get some updates on that. As for Ruby, most places are just
>> beginning to go the 1.9.x route, so I think the comparison with 1.8.7 is
>> fair.
>>>
>>> Overall, though, +1 for numbers with the latest versions of Python and
>>> Ruby.
>>>
>>> Brad
>>> #############################################################
>>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>>>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> #############################################################
>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>> the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder               Soquel, CA
> <[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>
>

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Speed Tests

decorior
Like Azend
On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Jason Huck wrote:

> Agreed. For web apps, proper asset management techniques will have a
> far more significant impact on performance.
>
> - jason
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As well as using compilers and interpreters for all languages.
>>
>> But really who makes a decision about languages based only on the speed of
>> code execution?  Compared to other criteria for web application development,
>> speed of code execution has little relevance.
>>
>> --steve
>>
>>
>> On 3/18/11 at 11:35 AM, [hidden email] (Jason Huck) pronounced:
>>
>>> Another way of looking at it is that since Lasso 9 is still very much
>>> in flux and out there on the bleeding edge, it's only fair to compare
>>> it to the latest available beta/bleeding edge/advanced versions of the
>>> other languages as well.
>>>
>>> - jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Brad Lindsay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Deco Rior wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, I had commented privately about the speed tests when Lasso 9 was
>>>
>>> released, but since it was not changed I am adding it. The speed tests are
>>> very misleading since both the Ruby and Python numbers are based on old
>>> versions. A more up to date comparison might cause Sean to ponder about the
>>> positioning of Lasso in the market.
>>>>
>>>> Quick note on this. Python's latest version is 3.x and when 3.0 was
>>>> released it
>>>
>>> was *slower* than 2.5 (I'm not sure if this is still the case.) Python has
>>> continued the 2.x development, release a 2.6 and, recently, even a 2.7. It
>>> might be good to get some updates on that. As for Ruby, most places are just
>>> beginning to go the 1.9.x route, so I think the comparison with 1.8.7 is
>>> fair.
>>>>
>>>> Overall, though, +1 for numbers with the latest versions of Python and
>>>> Ruby.
>>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>> #############################################################
>>>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>>>>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>>>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> #############################################################
>>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>>> the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>
>> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>> Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder               Soquel, CA
>> <[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>
>>
>>
>> #############################################################
>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

Deco Rior
[hidden email]

O:(720) 207-2806
F:(303) 942-7417

TennisSource.Net
software to power your tennis facility


This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and privileged information.   Any unauthorized review, use, printing, copying, retention, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email message to the sender and delete all copies of this message. Thank you


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

stevepiercy
In reply to this post by Ke Carlton-3
Check the diagram, first light green box.  So, yup, still works for me.
http://www.lassosoft.com/lasso-licenses-Explained

Plus my ISP would not have to buy an instance or two.

--steve


On 3/18/11 at 3:00 PM, [hidden email] (Ke Carlton) pronounced:

> Er no, all of those instances would need to run under the *same* vm or
> piece of hardware — according to the other thread...
>
> Still work for you?
>
> Ke
>
> On 18 March 2011 14:35, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > If however I *did* need to upgrade, I own a CLD license (pending) for 3
> > instances, which I could deploy one each on two different VMs and have one
> > remaining.  The model works for me.
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder               Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

stevepiercy
Or one of us could buy one perpetual unlimited instances license
for $5999, and share it.  LassoSoft would never know!

--steve


On 3/18/11 at 9:49 AM, [hidden email] (Steve Piercy - Web
Site Builder) pronounced:

>Check the diagram, first light green box.  So, yup, still works for me.
>http://www.lassosoft.com/lasso-licenses-Explained
>
>Plus my ISP would not have to buy an instance or two.
>
>--steve
>
>
>On 3/18/11 at 3:00 PM, [hidden email] (Ke Carlton) pronounced:
>
>>Er no, all of those instances would need to run under the *same* vm or
>>piece of hardware — according to the other thread...
>>
>>Still work for you?
>>
>>Ke
>>
>>On 18 March 2011 14:35, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder
>><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>If however I *did* need to upgrade, I own a CLD license (pending) for 3
>>>instances, which I could deploy one each on two different VMs and have one
>>>remaining.  The model works for me.
>>
>>#############################################################
>>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>>the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>
>
>-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder               Soquel, CA
><[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>
>
>
>#############################################################
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder              
Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Chris Wik-4
In reply to this post by stevepiercy
On 18.03.2011, at 17:30, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:

>> A new license for 8.5 was $650, right? With 40 sites defined (eg. an average shared hosting server), that works out to $16.25 per site - for a perpetual, non-expiring license.
>
> I don't know how it is possible to run that many Lasso sites without the server constantly crashing.

We've been running such a server for years with virtually no issues. Previously on CentOS 4, now on CentOS 5

The CentOS 5 server has 39 Lasso 8.5.6 sites and 4 Lasso 9 instances right now.

> Do you deploy one Lasso site per virtual host?  If so, would it be possible to ask customers to combine their websites under a single Lasso site?

One site per client for the most part. I suppose there would be a few possibilities to consolidate, but that is really beside the point.

Honestly, I don't really have an issue with the base level pricing of L8.6/9. For the typical customer who runs their Lasso sites from their own servers (dedicated or virtual), I think it's reasonable.

However for the small shared hosting type of client, which is where the vast majority of people start out, we're looking at almost doubling the entry level account pricing. Instead of $15/mo for an account with Lasso, it's now $15/mo + $15/mo for a Lasso instance license.

Yes that price point will drop a little with scale, but to get it down to $5 you would need 175 instance licenses...

With starting prices at $30/mo for a Lasso account, I don't know how Lasso will ever become mass market. Especially when you can get PHP accounts for one-tenth of that price.

--
Chris Wik
Anu Internet Services Ltd


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Ke Carlton-3
In reply to this post by stevepiercy
If you're referring to:
http://www.lassosoft.com/usercontent/licensing/LicenseDiagram.png —
note, the first box is two instances on a single VM — you mentioned
"which I could deploy one each on two different VMs and have one
remaining" which according to that diagram (and the other thread) you
cannot do. You'd need to install the three instances on the same OS.
That's why this has fail written all over it.

My CLD license doesn't really count for much as I can ONLY install
them on one OS — effectively my laptop. It would be awesome if I could
use three where ever I like — but it seems I can't. According to the
other thread I can't even run one of them VMd on my laptop as it's
effectively another OS...

Ke

On 18 March 2011 16:49, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Check the diagram, first light green box.  So, yup, still works for me.
> http://www.lassosoft.com/lasso-licenses-Explained
>
> Plus my ISP would not have to buy an instance or two.
>
> --steve
>

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Clive Bruton
In reply to this post by stevepiercy

On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:30, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:

> I also see that the old licensing was dirt cheap and doomed LassoSoft.

Isn't that a basic rule of economics, supply and demand drive  
pricing: if you have something that not many people want, and it has  
lots of comparable alternatives, then you'll probably have to sell it  
(relatively) cheaply. If you try to sell it more expensively, under  
the same conditions, then you will probably sell *none*.


-- Clive

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Clive Bruton
In reply to this post by Ke Carlton-3

On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:44, Ke Carlton wrote:

> And seriously, what system is going to run happily with more that a
> dozen Lasso instances?

So you're saying that the $6,000 licence has no practical application?


-- Clive

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Clive Bruton
In reply to this post by Steffan A. Cline

On 18 Mar 2011, at 13:23, Steffan A. Cline wrote:

> I understand the need for new revenue and structure but Lasso is NOT
> Oracle and not just the only solution out there and should be kept in
> mind. Had Lasso not tanked from its glory days, this structure  
> would be
> more feasible. Sure, the updates etc are appealing but you have to
> remember that you are repairing a severely damaged reputation and that
> takes time. Dropping this complex pricing makes Lasso look out of  
> reach.
> This is not repair, sorry to say, its detriment IMO FWIW.

I think I 100% agree with this sentiment. If Lasso was a market  
leader its field it could doubtless do something daring like this.  
But trying to adopt big company pricing strategies seems an obvious  
"fail" in this market.

What it does seem to do is make a sticky trap for legacy users of  
Lasso (those who are using it now, and who don't want to entirely re-
code in order to continue). At the same time you have a nice little  
conundrum: do I adopt this new model, and commit myself to recoding  
my sites (eventually, for L9), or do I just bite the bullet, and  
start recoding for Ruby/Python/PHP...?


-- Clive

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Erik Vandermey - WebCentrix, Inc.
In reply to this post by Chris Wik-4
On Mar 18, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Chris Wik wrote:

>> Do you deploy one Lasso site per virtual host?  If so, would it be possible to ask customers to combine their websites under a single Lasso site?
>
> One site per client for the most part. I suppose there would be a few possibilities to consolidate, but that is really beside the point.

I also segregate Lasso clients on a per site basis. To date I have had no serious stability issues (i.e. nothing that actually took down a site/server, but sluggish on rare occasions).

The bottom line is that I was prepared to upgrade 5 Lasso 8.x licenses to 8.6, with my anticipated cost $400-600 per license for a total of $2000-3000.

Now I'll probably only upgrade one server with a perpetual license with a 5 instance pack for $400 ($999 * 0.40 upgrade discount). Only problem/new sites will be deployed on the 8.6 server and the rest will live on 8.5.6 for the foreseeable future. Whether I deploy a Lasso 9 server is a decision for another day (only one of my Lasso customers has even inquired about Lasso 9).

I was looking forward to 8.6, now it's just depressing.

Regards,
---
Erik Van-der-Mey • [hidden email] • (AIM/iChat: [hidden email]) • http://webcentrix.net
WebCentrix, Inc. • Web Hosting/Co-Location/Dedicated Servers  • Kerio Connect/Control Reseller







#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Erik Vandermey - WebCentrix, Inc.
In reply to this post by Clive Bruton
On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Clive Bruton wrote:

> On 18 Mar 2011, at 13:23, Steffan A. Cline wrote:
>
>> I understand the need for new revenue and structure but Lasso is NOT
>> Oracle and not just the only solution out there and should be kept in
>> mind. Had Lasso not tanked from its glory days, this structure would be
>> more feasible. Sure, the updates etc are appealing but you have to
>> remember that you are repairing a severely damaged reputation and that
>> takes time. Dropping this complex pricing makes Lasso look out of reach.
>> This is not repair, sorry to say, its detriment IMO FWIW.
>
> I think I 100% agree with this sentiment. If Lasso was a market leader its field it could doubtless do something daring like this. But trying to adopt big company pricing strategies seems an obvious "fail" in this market.
>
> What it does seem to do is make a sticky trap for legacy users of Lasso (those who are using it now, and who don't want to entirely re-code in order to continue). At the same time you have a nice little conundrum: do I adopt this new model, and commit myself to recoding my sites (eventually, for L9), or do I just bite the bullet, and start recoding for Ruby/Python/PHP...?

I think for developers, the latter is probably more likely.

I already posted in another thread that I had the "you need to learn PHP" conversation with a client earlier this week. I was looking for compelling arguments to stick with Lasso and information to present to my client why that would be a good idea. If anything, I have been given more reasons to switch to PHP/YAFPL (Yet Another Free Programming Language) instead.

I could see paying a premium price for a Zend-like hi-performance Lasso engine and a lower price (almost free?) for just basic Lasso (no JIT, no support, etc.), much like the Zend/PHP relationship. Was this kind of model considered?

Regards,
---
Erik Van-der-Mey • [hidden email] • (AIM/iChat: [hidden email]) • http://webcentrix.net
WebCentrix, Inc. • Web Hosting/Co-Location/Dedicated Servers  • Kerio Connect/Control Reseller







#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

123