^Seconded^
» Forum
> Your Projects
Jonathan Pezzino wrote:
Zoom looks impressive, but it's not nice to charge people for a buggy, incomplete product, especially when the community standard is to keep programs free, even if they are big complicated applications. (See http://ticalc.org.)
Sincerely,
Jonathan Pezzino
Sincerely,
Jonathan Pezzino
Zoom Algebra wrote:
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your comments about Zoom Algebra. We
appreciate your taking the time to share your opinions
with us.
We’re glad you think Zoom looks impressive. Jeff
Hatch, the inventor of Zoom Algebra and President of
Zoom Math, quit a high-paying job and worked on Zoom
Algebra full time for over six months, rewriting TI’s
built-in functionality from scratch to get around its
limitations.
Thank you for your comments about Zoom Algebra. We
appreciate your taking the time to share your opinions
with us.
We’re glad you think Zoom looks impressive. Jeff
Hatch, the inventor of Zoom Algebra and President of
Zoom Math, quit a high-paying job and worked on Zoom
Algebra full time for over six months, rewriting TI’s
built-in functionality from scratch to get around its
limitations.
Good for Him.
Zoom Algebra wrote:
But to use the colloquial, “You ain’t seen nothin’
yet!†One of our customers has already described the
current edition of Zoom Algebra as jaw-dropping, but
we’re well underway in developing the second edition
which will simply blow you away.
yet!†One of our customers has already described the
current edition of Zoom Algebra as jaw-dropping, but
we’re well underway in developing the second edition
which will simply blow you away.
I'm intrigued!
Zoom Algebra wrote:
I must admit you hurt our feelings somewhat when you
said that what we are doing is “not nice.†I can
assure you that the two full-time and four part-time
members of our team are all very nice people and that
our intentions are honorable. Could you clarify
further for us what you mean by “not nice?†For
example, do you think TI is not nice for charging for
their calculators which don’t do algebra as well as
they ought to do it?
said that what we are doing is “not nice.†I can
assure you that the two full-time and four part-time
members of our team are all very nice people and that
our intentions are honorable. Could you clarify
further for us what you mean by “not nice?†For
example, do you think TI is not nice for charging for
their calculators which don’t do algebra as well as
they ought to do it?
Sorry, I meant "in violation of community standards." Your honor pales in comparison to those who have managed to create much more impressive applications on their own time and have found the goodwill to simply give them away, methinks.
Zoom Algebra wrote:
We’re puzzled that you claim Zoom Algebra is buggy and
incomplete. All commercial software has bugs on
initial release. That’s just the nature of the
business. But so far, only one of our many customers
has come across a bug. We fixed the bug and thanked
him with the promise of a free upgrade to version two.
If you can point out a bug we’re not aware of, that
isn’t an intentional program limitation, we’d be happy
to reward you with a free registration key.
We’re not sure what you mean by “incomplete.†Zoom
Algebra has lots of great features and all we get from
our customers is praise, not complaints. Yes, there
will be even more features in our next release of Zoom
Algebra, but that doesn’t make the first release
incomplete. If it wasn’t finished, we wouldn’t have
put it on the market.
incomplete. All commercial software has bugs on
initial release. That’s just the nature of the
business. But so far, only one of our many customers
has come across a bug. We fixed the bug and thanked
him with the promise of a free upgrade to version two.
If you can point out a bug we’re not aware of, that
isn’t an intentional program limitation, we’d be happy
to reward you with a free registration key.
We’re not sure what you mean by “incomplete.†Zoom
Algebra has lots of great features and all we get from
our customers is praise, not complaints. Yes, there
will be even more features in our next release of Zoom
Algebra, but that doesn’t make the first release
incomplete. If it wasn’t finished, we wouldn’t have
put it on the market.
Zoom Algebra Manual wrote:
6. Solve:
Code:
WARNING: The introductory version of Zoom Algebra isn't designed for this kind of problem! If you type a fractional equation with a variable in the denominator, you might get an extraneous solution—a wrong answer! To check if you got a wrong answer, just type the same equation again (without pressing CLEAR). If the calculator says "true" now, then the first answer was right. If it says, "Division by 0 is undefined," then the first answer was wrong; the equation you typed has no solution.
This version of Zoom Algebra can't handle square roots, polynomial division, factoring, or quadratic equations. Visit ZoomMath.com in 2006 to see when a version with more features will be available.
Code:
x/(x-1)=1/(x-1)
WARNING: The introductory version of Zoom Algebra isn't designed for this kind of problem! If you type a fractional equation with a variable in the denominator, you might get an extraneous solution—a wrong answer! To check if you got a wrong answer, just type the same equation again (without pressing CLEAR). If the calculator says "true" now, then the first answer was right. If it says, "Division by 0 is undefined," then the first answer was wrong; the equation you typed has no solution.
This version of Zoom Algebra can't handle square roots, polynomial division, factoring, or quadratic equations. Visit ZoomMath.com in 2006 to see when a version with more features will be available.
Ah, it's complete, it just lacks essential features and might sometimes give the wrong answer.
Zoom Algebra wrote:
We’re sorry you feel that we’ve violated ticalc.org
community standards. However I could not find such a
standard when I visited that website. I found an
article posted in 1999 entitled “The Possibilities of
Calculator Shareware,†and read the article and many
of the community’s comments about it. While many
people felt as you do that all programs should be
free, many other people disagreed. Many were
skeptical that a program could be good enough that a
shareware strategy could succeed. We’re going to
prove them wrong.
community standards. However I could not find such a
standard when I visited that website. I found an
article posted in 1999 entitled “The Possibilities of
Calculator Shareware,†and read the article and many
of the community’s comments about it. While many
people felt as you do that all programs should be
free, many other people disagreed. Many were
skeptical that a program could be good enough that a
shareware strategy could succeed. We’re going to
prove them wrong.
The hell you are!
Zoom Algebra wrote:
Zoom Algebra is not simply a big complicated
application. It’s a new paradigm for calculating.
Our mission is to make calculators easy for everyone
to use. Our market is average math students, not the
intelligent programmers of ticalc.org. We believe
that our program is already the most valuable
calculator software available. One could argue
against us, but our future products will put an end to
any opposing arguments. It would be nice if the
ticalc.org community embraced Zoom Algebra, but if it
doesn’t, we accept that. We do believe however, that
if Zoom Math succeeds as a business, our products will
have a beneficial impact on the graphing calculator
community and inspire other businesses to compete and
create software that benefits the community as well.
Hopefully, TI will recognize the added value which the
Zoom products bring to their calculators. If TI
purchased our company, their extensive marketing
channels could spread out our development costs and
maybe our programs would only add a few cents to the
cost of their calculators. But in the meantime,
development costs have to be paid for in each sale of
our product.
Don’t underestimate what it took to produce Zoom
Algebra. If this was something done in a week as a
hobby, we’d be glad to give it away free. But some
projects are so big that they require financing to
accomplish.
application. It’s a new paradigm for calculating.
Our mission is to make calculators easy for everyone
to use. Our market is average math students, not the
intelligent programmers of ticalc.org. We believe
that our program is already the most valuable
calculator software available. One could argue
against us, but our future products will put an end to
any opposing arguments. It would be nice if the
ticalc.org community embraced Zoom Algebra, but if it
doesn’t, we accept that. We do believe however, that
if Zoom Math succeeds as a business, our products will
have a beneficial impact on the graphing calculator
community and inspire other businesses to compete and
create software that benefits the community as well.
Hopefully, TI will recognize the added value which the
Zoom products bring to their calculators. If TI
purchased our company, their extensive marketing
channels could spread out our development costs and
maybe our programs would only add a few cents to the
cost of their calculators. But in the meantime,
development costs have to be paid for in each sale of
our product.
Don’t underestimate what it took to produce Zoom
Algebra. If this was something done in a week as a
hobby, we’d be glad to give it away free. But some
projects are so big that they require financing to
accomplish.
Funny how MOS, DCS, Cabamap, XLib, USBDRVR8x, and basically every assembly program ever created don't require financing.
Zoom Algebra wrote:
Some day in the future, our company will release Zoom
Calculus. It will be an astonishing program and sell
for less than $100. But it could never happen if we
didn’t have money to pay for its development. If a
student wanted a similar quality calculus application
for her TI-83 Plus, she would have to hire a skilled
programmer for at least two years to create it. Her
total cost would be well over $100,000.
We don't believe students should have to pay $100,000
for top-notch
calculus tutorial software, so except perhaps for
charitable donations to underprivileged schools, we
won’t be giving away Zoom Algebra for free anytime
soon.
Calculus. It will be an astonishing program and sell
for less than $100. But it could never happen if we
didn’t have money to pay for its development. If a
student wanted a similar quality calculus application
for her TI-83 Plus, she would have to hire a skilled
programmer for at least two years to create it. Her
total cost would be well over $100,000.
We don't believe students should have to pay $100,000
for top-notch
calculus tutorial software, so except perhaps for
charitable donations to underprivileged schools, we
won’t be giving away Zoom Algebra for free anytime
soon.
Perhaps they haven't heard of the Ti-89?
Zoom Algebra wrote:
At some point in the future, we may need to hire
additional programmers. Would you have any interest
in such a position?
additional programmers. Would you have any interest
in such a position?
LOL, if I knew ASM...
Zoom Algebra wrote:
We welcome any further comments you might have.
Sincerely,
Rick Hatch
CEO, Zoom Math
Sincerely,
Rick Hatch
CEO, Zoom Math
They won't be able to get off the ground without the support of the TI community, because the average math student doesn't know how to get programs off the Internet for their calculator. If ticalc members don't have the program, very few people are going to get it. That's why charging for apps has not really worked in the past, and it won't work now.
There was DAWG...that was free in its first releases and later put out for $15 on TI's site...the demo is available on ticalc. Maybe they should do that...
Visit my site at http://nerdyproductions.sobertillnoon.com
PokéGen on Sourceforge:
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/pokegen
ticalc profile
PokéGen on Sourceforge:
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/pokegen
ticalc profile
Congratulations JPez. You have apparently managed to tick off yet another slightly-deranged programmer. I complement you on your skill.
That is pretty hilarious, though; It's "complete," but can't handle quadratics, polynomial division, square roots, or factoring, which most people who own a calc can do without a calculator anyhow.
That is pretty hilarious, though; It's "complete," but can't handle quadratics, polynomial division, square roots, or factoring, which most people who own a calc can do without a calculator anyhow.
Yeah, Jpez has a knack for that. Seriously though, it's usually a great way to get people on their toes and actually making as differences.
Until the next swarm of crap he releases. [postmode=off-topic]I got a PM from him a few days ago asking me to "revise my signature" so it didn't offend him. My sig then was the "what do you burn apart from n00bs" thing. Oh, that was so refreshing. [/offtopic]
KermMartian wrote:
Wow. Charging for programs totally undermines the free sense of the community.
I feel ashamed to be in this forum after reading this thread. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH CHARGING FOR A PROGRAM!!!! If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT. Its that simple.
I'm especially disapointed with you, Kerm. Here you are screaming about "the free sense of the community", yet refuse to fully participate in the true meaning of free software yourself (Free software was originally designated as software that is free in USAGE, not necessarily costs. read more here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html )
I have a feeling the only reason there isn't more "paid-for" TI software, is that there isn't really a market for it. I applaud zoommath for trying, even though I will never buy it.
Correction: There is nothng wrong with chraging for a program if and only if the program is really worth the amount that is being charged. In this case, it isn't.
I liked the balloon one... I agree, they will never sell much of that because anyone with half a brain will just by an 89 and have the added speed and functionality
Kuro wrote:
Correction: There is nothng wrong with chraging for a program if and only if the program is really worth the amount that is being charged. In this case, it isn't.
NO. that is NOT true. There is nothing wrong with charging tons for a program, as long as it does what it claims. Look at photoshop, it costs upwards of $800, and can only do slightly more than gimp, but there is nothing wrong with that. Heck, look at windows home vs. pro - pro can only do slightly more, but costs another $100 or so, and people will still buy pro over home, and there is nothing wrong with that.
And how dare you make the claim that the program isn't worth it? Have you purchased it and tried it? Have you throroughly tested it? Or are you making that drastic claim based of the trial version and screenshots?
Quote from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html (While I realize this is more for the PC market place, I feel it translates nicely to the calculator market)
Quote:
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.
Kllrnohj wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
Wow. Charging for programs totally undermines the free sense of the community.
I feel ashamed to be in this forum after reading this thread. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH CHARGING FOR A PROGRAM!!!! If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT. Its that simple.
I'm especially disapointed with you, Kerm. Here you are screaming about "the free sense of the community", yet refuse to fully participate in the true meaning of free software yourself (Free software was originally designated as software that is free in USAGE, not necessarily costs. read more here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html )
I have a feeling the only reason there isn't more "paid-for" TI software, is that there isn't really a market for it. I applaud zoommath for trying, even though I will never buy it.
I never said there was anything wrong with charging for it in a moral sense, all I'm saying is that it won't be supported by the community and thus will fail.
The ti community operates more on the older vision of free software, where free software meant "free beer" not "free speech."
The Free Software Definition wrote:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Most ASM calc software is not open source - so freedoms 1 & 3 don't exist. Most authors require that they be accredited if they allow their code to be redistributed or modified at all. The "free" in the ti community reflects the no charge aspect more than the open source ethics.
jPez, I was not referring to you specifically about the charging for software, more the overall reaction towards it, and the specific flames/insults towards it.
However, look around in the TI-Calc archives, and you will find MANY open-source ASM programs released under the GNU GPL (or include source) - which falls under the rules of the FSF (Free Software Foundation), and therefore follow those rules. However, some of them get attacked for being useless (look in the S.N.O.T.Y. award thread, there was a proggy that checked the status of the ANS variable, and someone said its sad an ASM programmer would write something so useless - yet they failed to notice the source was included. It wasn't meant to be useful by itself, it was meant to TEACH others how to do similar things)
I guess I finally snapped at kerms apparant hypocritical attitude. (He favers/pushes the 'community', yet fails to help it by staying so insanely "protective" of his code)
However, look around in the TI-Calc archives, and you will find MANY open-source ASM programs released under the GNU GPL (or include source) - which falls under the rules of the FSF (Free Software Foundation), and therefore follow those rules. However, some of them get attacked for being useless (look in the S.N.O.T.Y. award thread, there was a proggy that checked the status of the ANS variable, and someone said its sad an ASM programmer would write something so useless - yet they failed to notice the source was included. It wasn't meant to be useful by itself, it was meant to TEACH others how to do similar things)
I guess I finally snapped at kerms apparant hypocritical attitude. (He favers/pushes the 'community', yet fails to help it by staying so insanely "protective" of his code)
I think Kerm has reason to be protective of his code - after all, his programs have been pirated numerous times and he does invest quite a bit of time in them. Besides, what reason is there to share code with the "community" (you're right to put it in quotes because it is falling apart) when the community is weak and loosely connected at best?
» Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic
» View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 3
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement