> Although well intended, I'm not sure a lite version would generate
> more sales nor increase user base.
>
> A Lite version would mean for Kim to manage two versions
> simultaneously, an increase in task. And many features that make ZTree
> wonderful would not be displayed.
>
> On the other hand, a single version being both crippled/trial when
> unlicensed and full featured when licensed is not usually very
> attractive, as it creates frustration when a-would-be licensed user find
> a payment is required to use a feature displayed.
>
> ZTree market niche is very peculiar. Someone can only be a licensed
> passionate user or not a user at all.
>
> I find the 60 days more than sufficient to test ZTree, no taking into
> account that the license system is more honor-based than
> technology-challenge based. :-)
>
> The REAL question is not IF a Lite version would generate more
> publicity or not, but HOW can more publicity be generated ?
> (and IF it is what is intended in the first place!)
>
> - Social media offensive ?
> - A fancy web site with tutorials ?
> - Deep registration discount for a limited time ?
> - A free version of older version ?
> - A free key issued for a single-day (that was the strategy used by
> WinRar, a free key for versions 4.x having been released a single day,
> and used widely after that - many of these users decided to purchase 5.x
> versions after that).
>
>
> or ... just do nothing and let real power users emerge by themselves ?
A free version would need to be so useful that it would be recommended. Perhaps
there would sometimes be a reminder about extra features (list
some) and bug fixes the paid version has. The population having the free
version (currently none) would I think have members attracted to the extra features of the paid one.
At least it's been discussed. Thanks for your contribution Laurent.
Geoff