On January 31, 2009 at 15:29, bcf1963 said...
This is all too typical of the type of meaningless responses
I see in these threads.
My response appeared meaningless because you unwilling or unable to read and comprehend the rest of the thread.
39 Cent,
Please read the license agreement that ships with any
computer or copy of any Microsoft product. It clearly
states what you receive, in most cases, a license to use
the software provided on a single computer system. It
also clearly states what you are not given, no source,
no right to reverse engineer, or modify.
I know what the MS EULA says. Had you actually read my responses.. all of them.. you would know that im suggesting that Crestron programmers include one in their contract so that there will be no question or confusion about what the line item 'programming' means on an invoice.
I nor Julie has stated how you can run your business.
I didnt think you did but thanks for the information. I have it incase i need it for anything.
I assume Julie has received many requests from customers
stranded by CI's, that now have systems where programming
would have to be, started from scratch. Think of yourself
in this customer's shoes: How would you like to buy a
home control system, only a year later to find out that
the business you worked with is gone, and adding a single
new DVD player, means you are looking at hundreds or thousands
of dollars of reprogramming?
It would suck.. just like it would suck if i invested 500k on a bunch of PC's only to find out MS went under. In every response i have in this thread i try to explain that this could be solved with a contract that explains what your getting in terms of programming.. if a client wants to pay extra for uncompiled code they get it and if they dont.. they dont.
In life.. you dont get what you deserve.. You get what you negotiate.. Put it in the contract.
I believe that to protect themselves, that installers
need to clearly state what the software license presented
to their customers consists of.
I have said this in every way i possibly can thru this entire thread. Each time im quoted by people who arent reading my responses.
I think Julie simply wishes to educate people to the issues
that are important in such a discussion.
I agree. If you read Alan's last post it explains why were faced with this issue now more than ever. In the past we as CI's and programmers ate the true cost of programming the system so that we could make money on the gear. Now that were not making money on the gear things need to be adjusted so we make money on the programming.
The company i work for already does this. We bill for system design, we bill for GUI creation and we charge what it actually costs to program the system.
At the end of the project the client gets the scematics, drawings, gui's and uncompiled code. When we leave a project any CI firm or programmer can be called to update the system.
I don't understand why any CI who isn't trying to take
advantage of their customers wouldn't welcome a customer
who is better educated.
The CI who explains the code issue to the client is the CI whos going to lose the bidding war with the trunk slammer. Thats why so many respond with "be sure to educate the end user about both sides of the story and dont just hand them a torch and point them to the castle".
