Existing users, log in.  New users, create a free account.  Lost password?

Mac OS X  |  Web & Software Development  |  Site Creation / Management  |  Espresso  |  Too High Priced!

Espresso

Espresso

Web development with HTML, CSS, XML, JavaScript, PHP support.

Version:  1.0.7

   [ Views: 450 ]

Too High Priced!

Feedback Type:  Commentary

Contributed by: Bill Dawson Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 02:22 PM PDT

Product Platform: MacOSX

Used Product For: Less than a month

Recommend Product: NO

There is nothing SHAREWARE about $81!

The term shareware used to be synonymous with "pocket change" or "lunch money". The current trend to call $49 apps shareware is even pushing it.

At $81 you have definitely crossed the line into a COMMERCIAL product. (There is nothing wrong with selling commercial products - but don't try to pass yourselves off as shareware just to get people to click on the link.)

It has a nice interface, but doesn't do anything you can't get elsewhere for WAY LESS. I might even buy it - if you were more honest. (If you lie about that, what else do you lie about?)   

5 of 11 users found this helpful.

Rate this Commentary

Was this Commentary helpful? Yes | No

Comments

2 comments |

Too High Priced! - JoolsG4

Perhaps you should look up the definition of Shareware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware

Shareware is "copyrighted commercial software that is distributed without payment on a trial basis".

That accurately describes how Espresso is distributed.

There is nothing to suggest software can only be shareware if its priced under a certain amount.

Before accusing people of lying, at least check your facts.

Reply to This

Wednesday, April 22 2009 @ 03:36 PM PDT


Too High Priced! - Rufus J

According to this definition, Dreamweaver is also "Shareware". There are also other dictionary definitions for the term bit this is not entirely relevant. It is quite commonly expected that the final price to license "shareware" is some reasonably low amount. One of the characteristics of language is that things mean what people believe they mean and this is not always reflected in "official" sources. The man's point is valid both generally and in regards to the software at hand, even if it's true the boundaries are not clearly defined. I would agree the developer should eventually go ahead and call it "commercial". But, given that some rather important claimed functionality is not currently working, it should be called BETA at this time.

Reply to This

Wednesday, April 22 2009 @ 07:41 PM PDT