License Activation

[robcat2075]

forget it.

[Rodney]

With the CD that transfer was possible. With the current activation method transfer isn't possible.

 

Not true.

Transfer is still possible.

The problem with the new authentication process is that the transfer may not be as quick as simply reinstalling.

However, I would say that in many cases transfer is even faster with the new authentication process.

(Those that have broken their CDs have experienced the outmoded and now thankfully obsolete CD replacement/transfer process)

 

This is certainly an area of concern but can, in my opinion be easily dealt with.

First and foremost, any professional worth working with on a project should not be relying solely on one computer and one installation of any given software.

Computers are cheap as is this software.

No matter the setup, computers break down and software licenses need to be managed.

Avoid the 'fire and forget' mentality.

(and don't forget to backup!)

 

Regarding delays in authentication, this process can be improved.

But I believe that is another topic.

[robcat2075]

.

[Rodney]

I think we are delving into semantics here but clarity is important.

 

It's possible to transfer a license but that is really creating a new license, there's no way to turn off the old license.

 

Licenses are not and technically never were transferable (hey, not my opinion, it says so right there in the license)

Hash Inc has 'transferred' licenses but... always the drama. Example: A long time A:M User on his death bed grants in his will his son 'shalt inherit my collection of A:M CDs'. Son tries to gain support and/or purchase a $99 upgrade to the current version (after dusting the cobwebs off the CDs several years later) and meets some resistance during the purchase. (He is not the licensee and that license is not transferrable at any time). Martin gets a call and Hash Inc 'transfers' the license. Even though this guy is now using A:M 'legitimately', technically, there was no transfer. Hash Inc just absorbed the $200 loss and hopes the son will be greatful. Time goes on and in time honored fashion the son passes the CDs on to his daughter and son, ... and cousin. "Pops would have wanted you to have this great program." At what point can Hash Inc declare 'Enough is Enough"? Rhetorical question; they can't without being revealed for the evil software hoarders and licensing gougers they are!

 

The above was an imaginary scenario but collects several such stories. After helping a few A:M users 'go legit' over the years through $99 upgrades I began to see the error of my ways. People and perceptions tend to change slowly unless forced through the change. Of course, it was always for a good cause and in the service of good people getting access to great software but I find I must plead guilty to devaluing A:M.

 

My take on this is that Licenses are purchased and all Installations are off by default.

Users with licenses install A:M on a computer system and those installations are then 'activated'... even the old CD installs but in that case you could install and activate in violation of the license. That isn't the case now... and those who've been violating the terms before (innocently and unknowingly of course!) have taken notice.

 

A problem with this is that over the years multiple installations has become seen as a God given right when in fact, if multiple computers with that license are used simultaneously, that violation has terminated the original license. (Please go now and destroy all of your copies and documentation... It's okay, I'll wait here)

 

For the online activation to be worth anything as a copy protection Hash needs to treat it as something that is very much for one computer and not to be freely moved around.

 

I would agree with you in this but there is that pesky problem of A:M Users moving around, formatting their hard drives and reinstalling. Herein lies a problem with the terminology. The license is still good and is not transferred when a new license key is generated (Note: This is a key to your license, not the actual license. That license remains in effect regardless of usage or installation). When reactivating, users have not lost their license but are attempting to re-access that license and the need to re-activate is simply a limitation/requirement of the activation software that tracks licenses. I'd guess Hash Inc would love to have no need for any re-activation but personally I don't see a problem with it. Activate, reactivate... live long and prosper. To the user the frustration is mostly in the perception of wasted time and effort. All they know is that they paid for something they can't access. Why should we have to reactivate every time we format our hard drives?!? I'm empathetic though, someday I'm sure I'll need to format one of my own hard drives.

 

An extra cost dongle solution that has the transportability of the CD would fill in the gaps for those who really need it and want to pay for it..

 

Besides market forces outside everyone's control this is really what it boils down to. Those who really need it must pay for it.

This is complicated because we aren't dealing with A:M's real value but that value paired down to a $99 upgrade for life.

Herein lies a significant problem in perceptions and expectations.

 

I'll counter that the current value of A:M is not $99 but $299. Via the Hash Inc store A:M is $299 per license, although importantly, you can get that price discounted. The tradeshow price was historically $199 because Hash Inc could make up for the loss per unit by selling in in volume.

If you've got lots of money to spend and you need unique and specially tailored licenses you've got negotiating power. Negotiate your own price! (Talk to someone at Hash Inc about that)

 

For most of us a $79 subscription gets us A:M each year so that we don't have worry about purchasing $299 yearly licenses.

The terms and conditions we license in the future will not be the same as what we purchase now.

I'm not a fan of licenses for life (at least not without effective support or maintenance agreements to sustain them). Such 'contracts' focus on the present at the expense of a future, force others to share unpaid maintenance costs and (I think) are self-invalidating before they are even signed.

 

I suppose that's a long way to go about saying... "A dongle would be fine."

[itsjustme]

I suppose that's a long way to go about saying... "A dongle would be fine."

 

Yessir, that was, Rodney.

 

I'm sure whatever Hash decides to do, it will be the best possible solution.