My post over on HST about new plugin prices..

[jwilson56]

Well I doubt this post will stay up long over on HST so I figured I would post it here...we shall see...


Well I would have to agree that the increase in price for privately written plugins is the strange part. If a private author wants to charge $15 for his plugin why is HST forcing the higher price? I can't believe thats it just for 'image'. If so thats laughable. Of coarse all the private plugin developers can sell their plugins on the side. Maybe we could get some third party to sell them cheaper and let HST have their self delusion on what constitutes a professional image.

Had HST been acting like this with these new policies and actions I dare say that I and probably other 'hobbyists' would have kept looking. I have said it before and I will say it again.... the user base is what made Homeseer what it is and like so many others these days they have seemingly turned their backs on us in their quest for the almighty buck. I don't begrudge HST making money but not at the expense of chopping the 'hobbyist' off at their knees.

John

BTW any chance that we could setup a third party plugin sale/update that interacts on Automated Outlets webpage?

 

[smee]

I really don't get what the big deal is.

HomeSeer is saying that in order to sell through them - in order for them to manage the business of selling your plugin - you must charge at least that much.

They are not saying that you must use their services. All they are saying is that there is a minimum price if you chose to do so.

Why do people object to them charging for this service - and raising the price if they feel it is necessary?

Again, they are not requiring anyone to sell a plugin through them. I think that this complaining about the price increase has gotten way out of hand.

They are providing a service and expecting to get paid. They are still allowing people to use their updater to distribute free plugins, aren't they? Everyone who handles money/transactions expects to take a cut - paypal does this, ebay does this. Why should HS not be allowed to charge for a service.

Would you expect Automated Outlet to handle all of the business issues with selling a plugin and not require some level of payment?

{begin soapbox}
Also, I'm beginning to get really tired of all the "old timers" who are lamenting the loss of the "good old days" and, I think, really confusing the issues. If you don't like the way plugins have superceded scripts and sharing, then do something about it. Instead of just complaining, start posting scripts. And, post them to the HomeSeer board. It's not enough to write something and stick it somewhere. You need to set an example. Show new users that they do not need to go running to plugins to do anything.

I'm as guilty of this as many other people. I lament the loss of sharing, too. But I've also seen how much work it can be to help people on the board with even the simplest scripts. If we get more of the old timers helping out instead of running away complaining, maybe something will change.
{end soapbox}

 

[harleydude]

How do plug-in developers ensure that they get paid for a plug-in?

The only mechanisim in place that I know of is a lock code provided by HS. Can a developer get a lock code from HS without having to sell the plug-in for the minimum amount set by HS? If so, then any developer who chooses can sell the plug-in outside of HS for anything they wish. If however, HS requires the developer to sell the plug-in through HS in order to obtain a lock code, then I can see problems.

Some plug-ins may not be worth the minimum amount required by HS, but the developer and the user base may see some monetary value in the plug-in.

Maybe this is something that needs to be discussed further on the HS board.

Rick

 

[jwilson56]

Nobody is saying that HST can't make money off the plugins and indeed they do (no matter what the price is). They get their cut just like any other company. I am sure that 99% of the processing is automated so what difference does it make what the price of the plugin is? That would be like Ebay saying that you can't sell anything less than $30 because they aren't making enough money from their fee's at $15 to make it worth their time.

I agree with Rick that the lock code is what complicates the selling of third party plugins.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I guess its my age but I grew up with the feeling that if a bunch of people help you develope your product through help, ideas, beta testing, community support and finally most of your sales through word of mouth that you should do what you can to support your customers not have the attitude that we should be greatful that they let us purchase their products.

John

 

[Rupp]

Smee,
Concerning your soapbox comments. I would love to post a free plugin or 2 but there are also friendships as well as respect involved here. I personally do not feel comfortable providing a plugin that would undercut a paid plugin. For example, many have written NetCallerID scripts/plugins but have not released them out of respect for David.

I'm one of the old timers and I speed a lot of time helping out users but one of the biggest problems is, as the HS BB has grown, the proliferation of scripts and plugins to do the same thing are making it difficult to keep up. I'm not sure what the answer is but I can tell you I'll roll with the changes and keep enjoying this wonderful hobby.

 

[smee]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I guess its my age but I grew up with the feeling that if a bunch of people help you develope your product through help, ideas, beta testing, community support and finally most of your sales through word of mouth that you should do what you can to support your customers not have the attitude that we should be greatful that they let us purchase their products.

I agree with this. I've been vocal in the past in complaining about software that was free, benefited from a great deal of volunteer help, and then decided to go commercial. And, in many cases I've stopped using it. I felt let down and decided that the software was not worth the money.

However, I don't think this is the same thing. HST is supporting the customers. The plugin price change is not something they are doing to the customer. It is something they are doing to the plugin developers. They are the ones who should be complaining, not the end users.

Users must realize that they do not need most of the plugins.
Developers must realize that they need to provide a plugin with functionality and support which justify the cost to the end user.

I don't think that the price change is the real issue here. I think it's the change in the way HS is perceived. It's the loss of the helpful environment, not the change in cost.

I've posted this before, but I believe that the real way to resolve the plugins is for HST to stop selling 3rd party software. If they like the plugin, I think they should pay the author and sell it for whatever they want. The arrangements can be between the author and HST. Otherwise, plugins can be sold/given away by the authors themselves.

If HST does this and charges too much, then I think people would have better reasons to complain. And, I think it will be more "market driven" and seem less arbitrary.

 

[smee]

I'm one of the old timers and I speed a lot of time helping out users but one of the biggest problems is, as the HS BB has grown, the proliferation of scripts and plugins to do the same thing are making it difficult to keep up. I'm not sure what the answer is but I can tell you I'll roll with the changes and keep enjoying this wonderful hobby.

Rupp:

I've avoided posting scripts that step on toes too - and I'll still be uncomfortable doing it when the prices go up (even if I don't believe the plugin is worth the new price).

I agree that it's a lot of work to help people on the board these days. I think much of this is because of what seems to be a large increase in the number of new users who don't have much (or any) programming/script writing experience. Much of the support on the board used to deal with specific details of interacting with HS. Now, much of it is basic programming. In the past, most people who were involved already had this basic experience.

I'm not sure how to handle this. I know that I've posted scripting examples that I thought were pretty straightforward and I've seen the difficulty that people have had understanding them.

I don't think that we can easily go back to the good old days of sharing. There are so many users now who need to have their hands held. What we probably need is a (really extensive) tutorial on script writing that concentrates on HS details as well. However, as far as I know this does not exist and it would be a major undertaking to develop. With the trend toward plugins, I don't see HST themselves feeling the need to create it.

Another possible solution would be for HST to add additional staff to monitor the board and answer all basic questions.

 

[Skibum]

Also, I'm beginning to get really tired of all the "old timers" who are lamenting the loss of the "good old days" and, I think, really confusing the issues.

If ya weren't there, then ya don't know how good it was!

as far as sharing... why SHOULD anyone SHARE, when others are getting paid?

....and all of my scripts are shared, for free.

 

[smee]

If ya weren't there, then ya don't know how good it was!

I'm sorry if my 3 1/2 years on the HS board doesn't qualify me to recognize what's been going on. My apologies.

as far as sharing... why SHOULD anyone SHARE, when others are getting paid?

Because if people can get something better for free, they won't pay for overpriced plugins, will they?

I think it's important because the new people on the board don't realize the way it used to be. All they see is forum after forum of plugins - of course they are going to think that they need plugins to do anything.

....and all of my scripts are shared, for free.

And hidden on your website rather than promoted.

Maybe the HS board needs a better way to let people know what scripts are out there. I doubt many new users search through the script library forum(s) when they are looking for something.

 

[Skibum]

Lets see... you won't even release your scripts that would let people avoid paying for a plug-in, and I have mine clearly posted to anyone that cares to look, and most have been downloaded in excess of 100 times. In fact, I freely posted a script snippit just today, on the HS board.

Hmmmmm.....Interesting, isn't it?

 

[smee]

Lets see... you won't even release your scripts that would let people avoid paying for a plug-in, and I have mine clearly posted to anyone that cares to look, and most have been downloaded in excess of 100 times. In fact, I freely posted a script snippit just today, on the HS board.

I'm sorry. I didn't make my points very clearly.

I did not mean that people should distribute scripts for free that duplicate what plugins do in order to bypass the paid plugins. I meant that people need to see examples that show that you do not need paid plugins to do everything. To often, you read posts with people asking "Who's going to write a plugin to do ... ?".

I'm not saying that you are not sharing. My concern is that people don't know it. That's what I mean by being hidden on your site. Why in the world would a new HS user look there? That's what I mean about the board needing a better way to let people know what's available. I don't think what's there now is working.

And, if someone would help me out here, maybe I'd have something to post.

 

[DavidL]

Folks like Tom Caldwell (and others) have posted announcements and discussions of new scripts like his Recipe and Kitchen shopping list scripts. He has graciously added functionality that users have suggested and then Tom hosts them on his site for download. He also provides support via Homeseer's forum.

When a plugin or script is paid for, I expect reasonably bug free software unless I am sigining up on a beta deal.

I do expect support. With freebees, I don't expect support - always nice, but never expected. Example of this would be UltraJones. He has spent tons of time developing UltraView2 which he has freely provided, and does support it when he can. I have asked a couple of times for support / answers regarding XML choke issues. It would be great if he could fix / answer the question, but I DON'T assume he is suppose to provide that support. If I paid for it, I would.

For each plugin or script (free or otherwise), there is a certain amount of support that Homeseer will have to expend. Example is when someone who doesn't know that Homeseer isn't responsible for providing support for a free plugin support calls or sends in a trouble ticket. This labor doesn't come "free".

 

[Guy Lavoie]

I haven't waded into this debate mostly because I'm not a Homeseer user, so I didn't really feel concerned (or "qualified") to comment. However the general discussion going on here (which could also apply to other products) has raised a few interesting points.

- The notion that someone refrains from publishing a free script because it might "step on the toes" of someone else selling it as an add on product is interesting. It really seems to go contrary to the sense of free sharing that has largely dominated the hobby HA scene up until now. I would rather tend to view the publishing of a free script as fair game and that the person who sells his version just needs to provide the added value, like support, ease of use, etc...or simply adjust to the new playing field. If everything gets commercialized, then the hobbyist aspect of HA will tend to disappear altogether and the market will become a collection of shrink wrapped options, each sold and supported by themselves. I'm not saying that commercial products are necessarily bad, but that the platform (Homeseer in this case) will no longer be the hobbyist's platform of choice and that something else will pick up the slack, brought together by another group of hobbyists who want to have the sharing community that they now miss.

- The "hobby" side of HA. Many of the people who participate in forums like this one, myself included, are in it at least as much for the fun side of doing things as for the end result. I did learn, however, that there is a sizable (and growing) group of people who are getting into HA for end results only, and don't really care to learn programming, electronics, etc. Those will lots of money will usually pay an integrator to do it for them (eg. the Crestron resellers) and some people like us will also make a business of it, often as a side job or even full time. Often, a product manufacturer will look at its customer base and decide what part of the market they want to be in. The attraction of selling to integrators is that these people will be one ones handling front line support, so they don't have to try and support customers from the technically savvy down to the beginner. On the other hand, your product needs to be very stable and versatile to sell to integrators, and the support you provide them must be at a consistent and professional level. Could it be that Homeseer is trying to climb up to selling principally to integrators? If the product has been around for a while (it seems it has) and is fairly reliable, then this might be the case. One would have to know how many end-user vs integrator sales they make to have any idea of this. Of course, the debate I see here is that the early adopters who helped refine and debug the original product might feel alienated by such a move and this is what appears to come out in this thread. If, however, Homeseer is making 75 or 80% of their sales to integrators (I'm just making up this number from thin air) then I can see that this alienation may or may not matter to them, depending on the mindset of the person making the decisions. A shift from "user oriented" to revenue driven often happens when new investors come in, a "marketing" person is hired, or if the company or product is sold off to a new owner. I don't know if either of these is the case for Homeseer (remember that I said I didn't quite feel qualified to get into this debate) but if this has indeed happened, then you might have a better feel for what might be happening.

In my particular case, the fun of freely exchanging ideas is one of the prime motivations for this hobby; more then the end result of the things I automate. Losing the sharing aspect would almost make me give up (or greatly reduce) my involvement with HA.

 

[JohnBullard]

Atta Boy Guy!!!

Those of you with an Ocelot, and have visited ADI's forum, know that Guy has freely written and posted thousands of lines of C-max code to help users solve and intergrate various Ocelot related solutions!

When I first got my Ocelot, I would have been lost without being able to read Guy's answers, and see his examples of ways to accomplish things with the Ocelot, that others had asked.

The very few questions I have ever posted on the HS board, haven't been answered in a way I could understand. So I just continue to read existing posts, on the HS board, and try things on my own. Some work, most don't, since I'm not a programmer or scripter.

Thank goodness for CocoonTech, and the ADI board, since I rely mostly on my Ocelot for my HA needs.

 

[smee]

The notion that someone refrains from publishing a free script because it might "step on the toes" of someone else selling it as an add on product is interesting.

In general, I'm all for competition. I think there are a few times, however, when I would prefer to avoid "stepping on someone's toes."

One is when the author of the commercial (pay) software has chosen to offer it at a reasonable price and is willing to provide support. I think that the WAF-NetCallerID script fits this category. It was offered (don't know what's happened with the price chagne) at a reasonable price, the author put some effort into providing a framework people could use, and he's available for support. It's cheap enough that people can buy it rather than spend the time to write something. On the other hand, the NetCallerID that it interfaces with is extremely easy to work with in scripting. I actually think that this device would be very good for people to get to learn the basics of interfacing with HS and hardware. I have written my own script to do this. I could distribute it, but I feel that since the author has made an effort to be reasonable about pricing and support I don't need to compete with him. This is a personal choice that I've made.

The other situation is if someone comes up with a truly original idea and provides a good implementation of it. Because much of this is done at a hobbyist level, there really isn't any protection for this person (copyright, patent) to protect their intellectual property. There's really nothing to prevent me from copying the idea and providing my own implementation. But, if the author makes a reasonable effort at pricing and support, I'd probably avoid distributing a "copy" of their work.

Now, I don't see any reason, in general, to avoid distributing software with functionality similar to something someone else has done. There are often many ways to look at things and there will almost always be different approaches available. Certainly, in the case of unreasonably [1] expensive or poorly supported plugins, people should be encouraged to develop competing software.

On the subject of the changing market for HA software in general and HS specifically: I think this is an important part of the shift to plugins. Most of the helpful discussions we are remembering from the HS board [2] are people helping others with "code snippets," not full blown scripts and plugins (although there are some well-developed and well-supported plugins which this description does not fit). But, the audience is changing. As HS users become more end-user than programmer/tinkerer, they expect more complete packages of functionality - rather than pieces of useful code. You can see this in discussions where people provide a short answer to a question which leads to long discussions of programming or "what to do with" that piece of code. I'm not sure how this should be handled. I think it will probably end up with two very distinct groups of users - the end users who expect a turnkey system and the tinkerers who are willing to learn the internal details of the system and want to play with it. Maybe we need to allow this break to occur - I don't know. I do think that HST needs to pay careful attention to the quality (beta) and support that is being offered in the paid plugins. The tinkerers will put up with quite a lot - the turnkey users may just leave.

[1] I'm not sure who decides what's reasonable.
[2] or, at least that I remember.