Comments on: Community WHS Add-Ins: A Change in Direction

By: DrewE

DrewE — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:56:37 +0000

Well if you do not have the need then don't worry about it.
I DO have the need. I only want my machines to be running when needed.
This is THE BEST WHS add-in that I have seen yet. It combines the functionality that took FOUR (4) other add-in into one. Make WHS a GREEN system like NO OTHER.
My WHS Server ONLY runs when any PC is up OR when the backups are being done. Other than that they are powered down saving as much electricity as possible.
If you don't need this because all of your machines should be running or you handle this differently, more power to you. BUT for anyone who wants to conserve power, this is the way to GO.

By: snowdins

snowdins — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:48:33 +0000

Wow! Thats a fantastic response! Keep flinging stones buddy!

I know what Lights Out does and does not do. However I find that the price tag is high. I spent a nice chunk of money on a energy monitor for my home, so you can save me any comments on spending money to save money. I was responding to this article and to others that felt 5-10 dollars was a good price for add-ins. I agree that this is a good price, I do not agree that 22 is.

P80 won second place in 2 readers polls. I guess your comments about little functionality and security problems are based on ?, or perhaps your insinuating that the users of WGS and the other forum are not that bright? P80 was also demonstrated at a PC conference in Japan by a MS Japan WHS Manager. If P80 was crap then why would it be recognized as anything but.

I am unaware of any security nightmare that exists. If you know of one, then you are the only one.

By: DrewE

DrewE — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:56:06 +0000

Yes GOOD software does have a price.
GREAT software is always better and the developer can ask what ever they want.
They will know if they hit the right price point by the number of license requests they get.
It is perfectly normal and good that WHS is getting to this point.
I hope the market grows and grows and grows because this is a GREAT solution for the home and small businesses where there is NO IT expert there that needs to pet the system on a regular basis to keep it up and running.
Yes the pay for add-ins need to add enough value that makes them worth their price.
The BIG companies should allow the trail version runs first. I have had two such products that were too much for my machine and it is better to find out before I buy. I saves both myself and the company time and trouble. If I had paid for the software first and found out that it was NOT ready for the normal WHS machine I would have to fight to get my money back. With the 'try first' I can attempt to contact the company first if there is a problem and if they don't respond to a potential customers problems then they will be just as bad if not worse with the paying customers.

Put your best foot forward. First impressions last longer.

I thank ALL of the WHS add-in developers for their work, keep up the good work and show us what we are missing and why we need your add-in.

By: DaveD

DaveD — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:41:35 +0000

Snowdins, I find it rather distasteful when an add-in developer such as yourself has the nerve to criticise what is probably the most useful piece of software available to the Windows Home Server platform when you clearly have very limited knowledge of it's overall functionality. This software has saved me more than the cost of purchase in energy bills alone and contrary to your statement it does not merely provide a mechanism to turn off a client.

P80 on the other hand is a security nightmare and provides little functionality not presented by other add-ins. In fact it's most useful features depend on the Autoexit add-in. Men in glass houses should not throw stones

By: snowdins

snowdins — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:50:15 +0000

I see now that Lights Out costs 22 bucks? I do not see the value in paying 22 dollars just to put my computer to sleep after a backup.

Whats keeping someone else from creating a free add-in that does this feature and more?

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:49:55 +0000

Of course developers can charge what they want, and if so inclined they should be compensated for their work. How anyone could argue those points, is beyond me.

As for me, however, I have a definite limit to what I am willing to pay for an add-in for anything, and that limit is arbitrarily set to $10. Anything more, and I can live without it.

By: Travis Illig

Travis Illig — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:09:21 +0000

I think paid add-ins are fine and, actually, inevitable. It's just like any other software. I think it'll potentially lead to a richer add-in ecosystem where someone with development skills sees an add-in they like but don't want to pay for (or want more features in) and an open source/free add-in will begin. Sort of like Adobe Photoshop vs. GIMP.

The only thing that worries me about paid add-ins is whether the authors charging truly understand what comes along with getting paid. Folks like me will expect full support and fast turnaround – if there's an issue I come across and I report it, you don't get to say, "Sorry, I'm on vacation for a week, I'll get to you when I come back." I paid. Part of that payment is an implicit contract that you'll support me (unless you clearly state otherwise prior to my paying). It sounded from the article like Rick Drasch gets it; do all the others?

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:03:56 +0000

I can't add too much to what has gone before except to confirm the idea that when we "End Users" see real value in an add-in (or anything else) we are for the most part content to pay a fair price for it. Obviously I don't want to get into some kind of "App Store" situation: with dozens of similar and largely poor-quality Apps clogging-up my "bandwidth" – in all senses of that word.

Stuff on the 'web is never "free". Much of it appears like the NHS (in the UK) "Free at the point of delivery", but someone somewhere has invested time, money, enthusiasm etc to produce it.
I believe it is essential that we support developers financially – they've got to eat too (even if it is only Pizza!). The issue is however what model we use. Personally I don't care for advert-based systems, so I'm happy to pay a fair price. A quick look at Adobe's UK pricing shows what an "unfair" price looks like.

By: scoob101

scoob101 — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:42:19 +0000

A bad workman blames his tools!…. but joking aside::

For European residents there may be some legislative help on the way. The EU is keen to put software warranties into law.

I`m sure small software houses and one-man-bands are not happy about it, but I am.

By: DV-Design

DV-Design — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:48:56 +0000

As a user, in this economy and job market, i have to decide where im going to cut the fat. For me its easiest to start with the non-tangibles and things that i dont NEED. Software generally falls under this category for most.

The smartest software companies be it games, utilities, etc. have shifted from pay-to-use models to other innovative means for making money while still keeping their users. Many of them using means that either shift the burden of revenue off the end user to advertisers or other companies. Others have adopted premium fees (support, extra features, etc).

The companies and devs that are able to either completely remove or alleviate the financial burden from the end user are the ones who will persevere through hard times and keep me as a user.

By: scoob101

scoob101 — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:39:52 +0000

Its not a great surprise that things are moving in this direction. Some devs look at the relativeley new "apps store" concept for selling small applications, and think quite rightly, "I want a peice of that action".

If you don`t like it, then blame Apple for monetising small applications so successfully!

By: JerryW

JerryW — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:05:57 +0000

For the most part I agree with the comments so far. However, there is an exception. This exception is with the add-in AdminMe. Though, I love the interface, the new look, and I believe is a well developed add-in, I do not feel that the developer has offered me something that I could not have gotten already with other add-ins that are free or own my own, provided you understand Windows 2003. I don't see the real usefuleness. Now, AutoExit, did offer something useful.

I too am a developer, though I am not developing for WHS, I have written many applications that my company uses on a daily basis. I never have found server monitors a must in a home environment. I say this because as a developer I create applications that should already take into account CPU, memory, etc. I know, you may not agree with me but it is an opinion.

I simply feel that if a developer is going to start charging and closing the door to freeware, that is fine, as long as the developer is offering something that one can find useful and most of all, a unique approach, or idea. An example is Mike Haven and team, over at homeserverland.com, creating add-ins that extend the use of Quicken, Quickbooks, and soon an add-in to make it easier to find and install add-ins through a unified console. It is this uniqueness, like Lights-Out, WHS Download Manager, and the list goes on, that sets these developers apart and warrants the price for their time and ingenuity.