It seems that I may have failed to make my point clear: As I wrote, I have no problem with the new business model. I would happily pay an appropriately discounted “upgrade price” for the new product and the yearly “maintenance fee” precisely for the reasons that I understand the need for your business to make money.


While I don’t doubt that you did this and I commend you for it, I personally have never contacted you for customer support. The reason is, of course, that I have not had any issues with the software that I couldn’t solve myself, which speaks for the quality of your program.


Well, since you brought it up: When Lightroom 1 was first introduced it was heavily discounted compared to the current price – no doubt to get a bigger user base installed fast. And since its introduction I paid for 2 updates. I got Photoshop for half its usual price as an “Upsell” from Photoshop Elements which was installed on my computer when I got it. I probably would not have gotten Photoshop for its full price, but for half it was something I could (barely) justify. And I subsequently paid for an update as well. I’m not saying this is how it is supposed to be done. But because of policies like these, Adobe got much more money from me personally than they would have without.

To make it clear, my main point was: A reasonable incentive for your existing customers to upgrade to the new program may be financially beneficial for you, as this may convince more people to pay for the new program (albeit less) and pay the yearly fee from the 2nd year on. The question is not whether they got their money’s worth out of their original Qimage purchase, but rather whether YOU get your money’s worth by not broadening you installed user base.

Anyway, I have tried to let you know how I see this issue and why I won’t get the new program right now. I would assume that this is useful information for a business to get. I certainly don’t want to tell you what you can or can’t do or how to run your business.

And I absolutely did not mean to imply that I expect the features of the new version for free!

I wish you all the best.

Marc

Well, reading this and the discussion on dpreview has inspired me to finally upgrade from Pro to Studio QI.  I had been wanting to the past few months, but holding out as I don't do RAW - just wanted the better interpolation and faster processing w/quad core.  I can see now I won't be interested in the new features of Ultimate and want Studio as it will be seamless transition from Pro.  So I'll put in my $30 support as an upgrade.

Hi Alex,
That was me  up until 3 years ago when Qimage started having the ability to convert raw files. Initially it was not that sophisticated and I bought SilkyPix.
Within 15 months SP was abandoned and since then Qimage has been my preferred raw processing program.
You can get so much more from your images when shooting in raw and Qimage makes it very easy to to process them. I would recommend using raw, assuming your camera can do it, and change your mind quickly to get Ultimate
I suspect Qimage Ultimate will make great strides on all fronts; printing, editing & raw, in the next year and beyond, so signing up for Q-U for is backing a winner I think. 
Terry

Let's put this into perspective by using a simile:

Adobe offers Photoshop and then comes up with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom [official name!], now, are former [legal] Adobe Photoshop users entitled to a special offer of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom? Actually, are they entitled to get any other major Adobe product cheaper or even for free?*

Instead of wasting ones own - oh so precious time - complaining about a reasonable marketing decision by a company one could give the software a test run, then decide if one wants or needs it. How much is the initial licence fee for QIU in working hours, three quarters, one, one and a half?


*On a side note, I am even unable to upgrade from, say, Creative Suite 3 Premium to Photoshop for an upgrade price if I don't need/want to upgrade all the other products in the Premium Suite.

Well, I have to agree with Ray as to the general usefulness (to me) of another editing program.  Especially, a RAW converter.  I got into QImage as simply the best program for printing that is out there.  I still feel that way.  As a "loyal" customer I upgraded to Studio after that. 

As to dpreview, I don't have much use for those comments either way.  For the most part I have always found it to be lambasted with complainers and those giving advise about things they know little or nothing about.  It's a perfect blind leading the blind forum in many ways.  Here, at least, we get to the bottom of most issues.

I have said the following before, but I'll reiterate:  Mike told me several times, years ago, that QI is a printing program.  The editing part was for tweaking.  That was in response to feature requests.  Then it became a RAW converter for many and "the only editing program you need" for others.  That is all well and good for those that get buy without other options.  And, I hold no grudge since they know how and what they want their end product to look like.

HOWEVER, Mike, I too do not know how you kept "free upgrades for life" this long.  In a constant new sales atmosphere that would work.  As the market gets saturated and the income falls off, things change.  That being said, you were the one that said "free for life" and set the policy.  You made a contract with a lot of people that way.  To question their expectations that you would fulfill your promise or state they got their money's worth out of you just seems wrong.

I, like others, will stay with Studio for obvious reasons.  It's the best printing software going.  I have LR3, but find it totally cumbersome, so don't use it for much at all (I get it free, so am not complaining).  However, CS5 with its new features make photographic things possible that were never there.  Adding the new panorama and HDR upgrades along with content-aware brushes add a new dynamic to all of it. 

The other thing I don't understand here is how those that said and said that Studio is "all you ever need" to totally prepare a photograph for printing can now say that Ultimate is everything.  They all ready had everything.  Sorry, I couldn't let that pass.

Seth

I do not have an issue with selling new software and defining a new business model - it makes sense to me.

I agree with Andy, however, that the choice of "Qimage Ultimate" for the name of the new software is unfortunate (in that it appears to generate confusion). It does not sound "new." We have Qimage Pro, Qimage Studio, Qimage Ultimate... Sounds like flavors of the same software rather than a new distinctly different software program.

Ted

Throwing my own 2 cents in.  I don't have any problem with Mike introducing a new product model with a renewal subscription.  The way I view the issue with Ultimate however is that if I compare the features list with QImage Studio - it's identical except that some features are faster and Flashpipe has been added to it (if I wanted Flashpipe features I would already own it).  The retention of EXIF info from RAW to jpeg/tiff is new but not a major improvement.  There just does not seem to be a major differentation of features between Studio and Ultimate to view it as a new  and separate product; additionally, it is not like that if I bought the Ultimate edition that I would still use the Studio edition.  The 2 products may be substantively different in fact but not in the information provided on Mike's QImage homepage.  

I'm sure that Mike will make significant changes such that the 2 products, Ultimate and Studio editions, will be substantively different this time next year.  But the question is "Why should I buy a new product NOW that does essentially the same thing as products I already have?"  For future new features which I don't know and not sure if I want since Mike hasn't disclosed what new features he plans on adding?  Users of Lite and Pro will not change otherwise they would have gotten the Studio edition.  For the Studio owners, if they wanted Flashpipe, it's only $20 more and they probably already have it or it doesn't mean much to them.  

Mike, I understand why you don't want to provide an "upgrade" path since there is now an annual fee and there would be bitching and complaining about free upgrades for life and a "loyalty" discount also has connotations but, at least for the first year or two, there should be a scaled path to change products in order to induce current customers to change now rather than a couple of years from now when their needs change.
 
As a point of information, I bought the Pro version in 2006 which had RAW support and upgraded later to Studio for $40 more so there has not been as large a change history as from 1998 to 2006 of features added that I can say that I got upgraded for free.  So my base product was higher and most of the discussion of what I got if I bought QImage in the beginning leaves me cold.

This was bound to happen eventually. This isn't the only product I've bought with free upgrades for life either. I think this is about as classy a way of solving the problem as possible. Those that don't want to shell out for a new copy aren't being forced to do so, Mike's holding up his end. But if you want the what will surely be significant advantages to the ultimate edition you'll have to pay.

Redchairsoftware had a really good product in notmad which ultimately seems to have stalled out as they never resolved the issue of new purchases and then became irrelevant. Which is not something which anybody really wants to happen to Qimage.

That being said, it was perhaps in poor judgment to launch so soon with so very little in the way of additional features. Considering the lack of difference between the two at this juncture it might have made more sense to either delay or offer up a longer free upgrade period for the first few months to get things jump started with the yearly upgrades after that. And that many of us already have most of the functionality.