What's going on at QNX?

bridged with qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
Yuri D'Elia

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Yuri D'Elia » Thu Jun 13, 2002 10:35 am

In article <ae862a$khc$2@nntp.qnx.com>, Chris McKillop wrote:
"Bill Caroselli \(Q-TPS\)" <QTPS@earthlink.net> wrote:
True. After all, QSSL is a business. They have to make money. I WANT them
to make money. I want them to continue to make wonderful software products
like QNX Version 4 for another 20 years at least.
I do completely agree with this. QNX is somewhat fantastic and it was
*love* the first time I seen It (6.0). And the price..
- NC "Non-Commercial" - free for download
- SE "Standard Edition" - $4,295 US
- PE "Professional Edition" - $8,695 US
is perfectly reasonable for *business* but cuts off those people like me
that just wants to experiment and enjoy a fantasting OS. I must admit
that 5000$ is a bit hight for me actually and a bit too hight if I think
I would only use it for testing, stupid things and expertise on a
realtime OS (I would accept istead a 'NC' licence for a lower price (say
100$) but that would include the full development suite).

I do understand that you DO business with this, but what could a guy do
with a 'non commercial' license?

- expertise with your development suite
- talk about this great stuff around
- port software and _produce_ free software for it (the only admitted
license).

Thus, they grow the actual QNX community IMHO, and, when they'll start
to make money with it, they'll pay.

Limiting the actual possibility of the NC distribution may be a wrong
marketing strategy. I do not do marketing but I immagine THIS scenario:

- complete 'free for NC' edition

one user downloads it. If feels immediately impressed with it and
starts to download software and mainly _develop_ software for
expertise with it. Since the software must remain free, it actually
"documents" and makes free examples for your OS.
Since it have the best around software (and IDE, a reliable library..)
it starts to be 'dependend' :). Once it starts to do commercial things
it will immediately know WHAT these standard and professional ed. do
provide. As the user would probably use software found onto the
professional ed., there are more probability that it will
immediately buy it instead of asking himself 'why doing this big
step if I don't know how I can improve with an IDE?'.

I've downloaded and installed the 6.2 release yesterday. I've
immediately noted these 'warnings' about the license. After that I've
started to note those _missing_ things around, like the cross platform
development tools, the dinkum c++ library and so on. As I was using
them, I'm now dependent and I would probably buy immediately at least the
Standard ed., but (as a single) I just cannot efford it.

How an user could remain impressed of your great multiplatform Makefile
strategy if it cannot use it?

As some of my projects was using the dinkum c++ library, I bet that now
(with only g++2.9x and it's sucking c++ library) I couldn't compile them
anymore. Even removing the dinkum c++ library only evidence the lack of a
reliable and standard c++ compiler. Sadly, I used 6.x for serveral
months for several hours a day as a pure hobbist and now I feel a bit
spoiled. Tomorrow I'll probably put back 6.1a again..

These are just my 2c.
Sincerly..

--
wave++ (Yuri D'Elia)
Software Developer @ ubiest.com

Rennie Allen

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Rennie Allen » Thu Jun 13, 2002 12:32 pm

Jim Lambert wrote:
I'd like to see development licensing mature into two different development
license models. One, charge the developer a large development fee so they
can develop a set-top box that will retail for $49.95. The developer is
saying "ok, give me a large upfront fee but I'm going to need you to really
lower your production price to make it feasible for me to produce this box".
The second one that I have yet to see is to give a developer a lower or even
zero cost development license but that developer then gets zero or a very
small % off the retail price at production time.

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn't want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn't have been an issue. I don't
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.
Jim,

Unlike Bill I don't believe that QSSL has given up on the low volume
high royalty market, however, they are definately not in the position of
addressing it right now. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I think
it has to do with the whole "no cost" thing. I believe that QSSL fears
that by offering a lower development seat model, that unscrupulous
customers may not pay the higher runtime costs associated with the lower
cost development seat, and simply sell their software. This is very
difficult to police. QSSL needs to come up with a model that assures
them of their revenue stream from low vol/high royalty market. I'm not
sure what this model is, but I'm thinking that a NC version that has
diminished HRT capabilities might be one way of doing this. The
tinkerers/experimenters won't care about the poor HRT performance (so
long as they know the commercial product doesn't suffer), and this might
achieve the desirable exposure, while allowing QSSL to once again base
their revenue stream (at least partially) on run-time royalties (which
would allow a "pay me now - or pay me later" pricing model).

As an outsider, these latest changes to the distribution model, appear
to be headed in the above direction.

Rennie

Frank Liu

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Frank Liu » Thu Jun 13, 2002 1:19 pm

Yuri D'Elia <wavexx@hydra.ubiest.com> wrote:
realtime OS (I would accept istead a 'NC' licence for a lower price (say
100$) but that would include the full development suite).
This is a good idea. Instead of giving away free stripped down version
for NC, you can charge a small fee and give a full version for NC.
Since it is NC, it won't affect your SE/PE sales. Since it is full
version, it will be a better advertise for your SE/PE. The software
produced will be more compatible (cdm won't have to re-create his
3rd party CD ...)

David Rempel

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by David Rempel » Thu Jun 13, 2002 3:17 pm

Frank Liu <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote:
<SNIP>
(cdm won't have to re-create his 3rd party CD ...)
Hey! Let's give credit where credit is due here ;), the 3rd party CD was a team
effort by many here at QSSL, and not to diminish the amount of work that Chris put
into this thing, but I put a good 2+ weeks into it myself (full time, including weekends).
Other people here put alot of effort into it here as well. I wouldn't call it
cdm's CD, I'd call it the communities CD that was started by QSS R&D engineers. The
next version will likely have even more from contributions from the community (I hope,
after all this is why we did it, to help make it easier for you guys to get the comminuty
really rolling). The success of this CD in the long run will ultimately be up to
the community as much as anything anyone at QSS does. When Bill gets the online
repository on QDN going, the submissions that appear there will be on the next CD,
so get your stuff ready to go :).

Dave Rempel

Jim Lambert

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Jim Lambert » Thu Jun 13, 2002 4:43 pm

I'd like to see development licensing mature into two different development
license models. One, charge the developer a large development fee so they
can develop a set-top box that will retail for $49.95. The developer is
saying "ok, give me a large upfront fee but I'm going to need you to really
lower your production price to make it feasible for me to produce this box".
The second one that I have yet to see is to give a developer a lower or even
zero cost development license but that developer then gets zero or a very
small % off the retail price at production time.

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn't want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn't have been an issue. I don't
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.

JMHO,

Jim

"Yuri D'Elia" <wavexx@hydra.ubiest.com> wrote in message
news:slrnaggu48.ggv.wavexx@hydra.hydra.ubi.intra...
In article <ae862a$khc$2@nntp.qnx.com>, Chris McKillop wrote:
"Bill Caroselli \(Q-TPS\)" <QTPS@earthlink.net> wrote:
True. After all, QSSL is a business. They have to make money. I WANT
them
to make money. I want them to continue to make wonderful software
products
like QNX Version 4 for another 20 years at least.

I do completely agree with this. QNX is somewhat fantastic and it was
*love* the first time I seen It (6.0). And the price..

- NC "Non-Commercial" - free for download
- SE "Standard Edition" - $4,295 US
- PE "Professional Edition" - $8,695 US

is perfectly reasonable for *business* but cuts off those people like me
that just wants to experiment and enjoy a fantasting OS. I must admit
that 5000$ is a bit hight for me actually and a bit too hight if I think
I would only use it for testing, stupid things and expertise on a
realtime OS (I would accept istead a 'NC' licence for a lower price (say
100$) but that would include the full development suite).

I do understand that you DO business with this, but what could a guy do
with a 'non commercial' license?

- expertise with your development suite
- talk about this great stuff around
- port software and _produce_ free software for it (the only admitted
license).

Thus, they grow the actual QNX community IMHO, and, when they'll start
to make money with it, they'll pay.

Limiting the actual possibility of the NC distribution may be a wrong
marketing strategy. I do not do marketing but I immagine THIS scenario:

- complete 'free for NC' edition

one user downloads it. If feels immediately impressed with it and
starts to download software and mainly _develop_ software for
expertise with it. Since the software must remain free, it actually
"documents" and makes free examples for your OS.
Since it have the best around software (and IDE, a reliable library..)
it starts to be 'dependend' :). Once it starts to do commercial things
it will immediately know WHAT these standard and professional ed. do
provide. As the user would probably use software found onto the
professional ed., there are more probability that it will
immediately buy it instead of asking himself 'why doing this big
step if I don't know how I can improve with an IDE?'.

I've downloaded and installed the 6.2 release yesterday. I've
immediately noted these 'warnings' about the license. After that I've
started to note those _missing_ things around, like the cross platform
development tools, the dinkum c++ library and so on. As I was using
them, I'm now dependent and I would probably buy immediately at least the
Standard ed., but (as a single) I just cannot efford it.

How an user could remain impressed of your great multiplatform Makefile
strategy if it cannot use it?

As some of my projects was using the dinkum c++ library, I bet that now
(with only g++2.9x and it's sucking c++ library) I couldn't compile them
anymore. Even removing the dinkum c++ library only evidence the lack of a
reliable and standard c++ compiler. Sadly, I used 6.x for serveral
months for several hours a day as a pure hobbist and now I feel a bit
spoiled. Tomorrow I'll probably put back 6.1a again..

These are just my 2c.
Sincerly..

--
wave++ (Yuri D'Elia)
Software Developer @ ubiest.com

David Gibbs

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by David Gibbs » Thu Jun 13, 2002 5:39 pm

Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote:
"Chris McKillop" <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:ae862a$khc$2@nntp.qnx.com...
- NC "Non-Commercial" - free for download
- SE "Standard Edition" - $4,295 US
- PE "Professional Edition" - $8,695 US

That's one of the great benefits of working here. I've got a $12,000
(Canadian) development seat on two boxes here AND on my home machine.
That's like an extra $36,000 per year that the tax man can't say a thing
about. And I get free upgrades any time I want.
Hmm... I think I'd better tell rev can about that benefit... might be a
taxable benefit... :-)

-David
--
QNX Training Services
http://www.qnx.com/support/training/
Please followup in this newsgroup if you have further questions.

Kris Warkentin

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Kris Warkentin » Thu Jun 13, 2002 5:45 pm

That's a good point. I do work from home some mornings and evenings and
occasionally telecommute. I should look into that. Thanks!

Kris

"Frank Liu" <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote in message
news:ae8d8c$nlv$1@inn.qnx.com...
Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote:

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, technically, the tax man does
have
something to say about it. If your employer provides you benefit for
your
own personal use, then that is a taxable benefit. If it is provided
for
business use but you also get to use it 50% of the time for personal
use
then 50% of it's value is taxable.


Personal use would imply having a life outside of work right?
Oh...okay.
I'm safe then. *Whew*

In that case, instead of paying extra taxes, you may be eligible
for tax deductions for your computer, your Internet connection,
your home, etc. if qssl can say those are work related.

Frank

Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) » Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:10 pm

"Jim Lambert" <jlambert@futurex.com> wrote in message
news:aeahba$e37$1@inn.qnx.com...
This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn't want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn't have been an issue. I don't
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.

JMHO,

Jim

You're right Jim, they don't. If you can sell 5000 run times a month they
DON'T want to deal with you. And for the record, me either.

I'm back at a previous employer. We are working on a great QNX4 product.
We bought several hundred RT licenses several years ago and got a good price
for them. To date we've sold only a small percentage of that.

Thank God QNX4 is a mature and stable product. Because the company we
bought those licenses from does exist any more.

Alex Cellarius

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Alex Cellarius » Thu Jun 13, 2002 8:24 pm

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:43:46 -0700, "Jim Lambert" <jlambert@futurex.com> wrote:
I'd like to see development licensing mature into two different development
license models. One, charge the developer a large development fee so they
can develop a set-top box that will retail for $49.95. The developer is
saying "ok, give me a large upfront fee but I'm going to need you to really
lower your production price to make it feasible for me to produce this box".
The second one that I have yet to see is to give a developer a lower or even
zero cost development license but that developer then gets zero or a very
small % off the retail price at production time.

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn't want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn't have been an issue. I don't
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.
I would be interested to know if these scenarios
were discussed with your salesrep?

Alex Cellarius

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Alex Cellarius » Thu Jun 13, 2002 8:27 pm

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:10:06 -0700, "Bill Caroselli \(Q-TPS\)" <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote:
"Jim Lambert" <jlambert@futurex.com> wrote in message
news:aeahba$e37$1@inn.qnx.com...

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn't want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn't have been an issue. I don't
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.

JMHO,

Jim

You're right Jim, they don't. If you can sell 5000 run times a month they
DON'T want to deal with you. And for the record, me either.
I'm not sure what you mean here?
I know I will go around the block many times for 5000 runtimes/month...
I'm back at a previous employer. We are working on a great QNX4 product.
We bought several hundred RT licenses several years ago and got a good price
for them. To date we've sold only a small percentage of that.

Thank God QNX4 is a mature and stable product. Because the company we
bought those licenses from does exist any more.

Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) » Thu Jun 13, 2002 8:41 pm

"Alex Cellarius" <acellarius@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104_1024000055@pentiumii...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:10:06 -0700, "Bill Caroselli \(Q-TPS\)"
QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote:

You're right Jim, they don't. If you can sell 5000 run times a month
they
DON'T want to deal with you. And for the record, me either.

I'm not sure what you mean here?
I know I will go around the block many times for 5000 runtimes/month...

Sorry. That should have been "CAN'T" sell 5000 ...
Gee. Just two little characters and everyone gets all confused. ;~}

Yuri D'Elia

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Yuri D'Elia » Thu Jun 13, 2002 8:56 pm

In article <aea64q$59c$1@inn.qnx.com>, Frank Liu wrote:
Yuri D'Elia <wavexx@hydra.ubiest.com> wrote:
realtime OS (I would accept istead a 'NC' licence for a lower price (say
100$) but that would include the full development suite).

This is a good idea. Instead of giving away free stripped down version
for NC, you can charge a small fee and give a full version for NC.
Since it is NC, it won't affect your SE/PE sales. Since it is full
version, it will be a better advertise for your SE/PE. The software
produced will be more compatible (cdm won't have to re-create his
3rd party CD ...)
Do we have a chance that someone at QSSL consider (or even 'read') this
proposal?

--
wave++ (Yuri D'Elia)
Software Developer @ ubiest.com

Eric Johnson

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Eric Johnson » Thu Jun 13, 2002 9:03 pm

"Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)" <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:aeapr3$jt0$1@inn.qnx.com...
"Jim Lambert" <jlambert@futurex.com> wrote in message
news:aeahba$e37$1@inn.qnx.com...

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000
but
didn't want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn't have been an issue. I don't
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems
using
their software as a piece of the system.

JMHO,

Jim

You're right Jim, they don't. If you can sell 5000 run times a month they
DON'T want to deal with you. And for the record, me either.

I'm back at a previous employer. We are working on a great QNX4 product.
We bought several hundred RT licenses several years ago and got a good
price
for them. To date we've sold only a small percentage of that.

Thank God QNX4 is a mature and stable product. Because the company we
bought those licenses from does exist any more.
** on soapbox **

This is just my personal opinion, not the company line:

Bill, clearly you intended to get a rise out of people and I'd
say you've succeeded in my case. I've been here since 1988
and have been using QNX since 1985. Many 'old timers' who
were part of the company you dealt with in the past are still
here, not the least of whom are Dan Dodge and Gord Bell
who continue to lead our organization. We've also brought
in some of the best and brightest to help us as we grow and
these terrific people have complemented, not replaced, those
who have been here a long time. The company _is_ the people
who work here and your comment is as wrong as it is offensive.

QNX has more of a drive to satisfy our customers now than
we have had in the past decade of our existence. I've been
here a while and can tell you, that is the absolute truth. We
have the best of intentions with respect to delivering quality
and value for money, and developing good relationships
with all our customers. And if we aren't doing it right, we
want to know. But constructive comments don't include
cynical remarks about QNX "not being the same company"
or not caring.

We're also a business and have to both compete and prosper
in order to continue offering the quality goods and services
that we have over the years. That means that for the products
and services we provide we need to charge appropriately.

It's my opinion that our former pricing structure with respect
to development seats had led us to so some funny things.
Development seats should be priced such that they pay for our
costs associated with making the sale, maintaining a proper
relationship with our customer, and supporting that customer.
If we charge too little for development seats, it leads to
unfortunate side-effects. In my opinion, that's what had
happened with our previous pricing models and I believe is
one of the root causes of your perception that we don't care
about customers who don't have huge runtime volumes. If we
have pushed away customers before I trust that is not
true now and ask you please to give us another chance.

With respect to QNX 4, I'm very proud of QNX 4, as is just
about everyone who worked to create it. It is a great product.
So is QNX Neutrino. QNX Neutrino is a worthy successor and
is far from an infant technology.

QNX has been selling Neutrino technology for roughly the
past five years and it was in development well before that.
We've tested QNX Neutrino more exhaustively than we ever
did QNX 4. And the improvements show. To the extent that
QNX Neutrino doesn't have all the features that QNX 4 used
to, it's because most customers who have been interested in
the technology aren't demanding it.. yet. That doesn't
mean that the decision of tomorrow won't be to implement
those features. Input from customers, including (and
perhaps even in particular) yourself are always welcome
and valued.

OK, I'll step off the soapbox now. Thanks for listening. :)

Bill, if you want to discuss this at length via email or telephone,
just email me.

** off soapbox **

Chris McKillop

Re: What's going on at QNX?

Post by Chris McKillop » Fri Jun 14, 2002 12:36 am

David Rempel <drempel@qnx.com> wrote:
Frank Liu <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote:
SNIP

(cdm won't have to re-create his 3rd party CD ...)

Hey! Let's give credit where credit is due here ;), the 3rd party CD was a team
effort by many here at QSSL, and not to diminish the amount of work that Chris put
into this thing, but I put a good 2+ weeks into it myself (full time, including weekends).
Other people here put alot of effort into it here as well. I wouldn't call it
cdm's CD, I'd call it the communities CD that was started by QSS R&D engineers.
100% behind you there Dave. I have actually had to step in many times and
corrected people on this before (including editing a posting on qnxZone
about the cd). Lots of hours where put in by lots of people to make that
disc come from nothing to something in 2 weeks. ;) And it will only get
better!

chris

--
Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> "The faster I go, the behinder I get."
Software Engineer, QSSL -- Lewis Carroll --
http://qnx.wox.org/

Guest

What is Momentics? (formerly "What's going on at QNX")

Post by Guest » Fri Jun 14, 2002 4:59 am

Igor Kovalenko <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote:
You guys must think that by adding more and more nonsense to this thread you
make it more valuable and easy to follow...
I agree. I'm still waiting for a better explanation from Alec as to how the
use of the Momentics name removes confusion from the QNX product line.

I know I didn't like the name at first, it just seems silly. It's kinda grown
on my now, and I don't mind it anymore. Now I only take issue with the fact
that "Momentics" (aside from being a made up word) has no real value in terms
of it's ability to describe the product offering from QSSL.

If we look at the pre-6.2/Momentics product offering there was:

- QNX RTP (free download)
- QNX 6 Commercial Development Seat [more or less indistinguisable from RTP]
- QNX Windows SDK
- QNX Solaris SDK

Or something like that, and admittedly, it was never clear what the products
actually were.

But now, we have:
- QNX Momentics NC (free download, x86/arm only, no IDE, no embedding tools)
- QNX Momentics SE (commercial development seat, no IDE, all platforms)
- QNX Momentics PE (commercial development seat, IDE, all platforms, procnto-instr)
- QNX Neutrino + QNX Photon

Interesting thing is that the last two NTO + Photon are included in the previous
three, so they don't immediately appear to be products at all, until you think of
them for volume licensing for an OEM product.

This is where the first problem occurs.
Q) Can you install QNX Neutrino + QNX Photon without installing Momentics?
A) Yes.
Download QNX Momentics NC, and perform the initial install, but not the
subsequent install of the Momentics package after rebooting.

The problem here is that you see NO VISIBLE DIFFERENCE between NC, SE, and PE
until you run the installer, and even then, you don't actually see three choices,
you see one with the same name (for all intents and purposes). So the user only
really has a notion of having installed "Momentics", and not "Momentics NC", or
"Momentics SE", or "Momentics PE". So, if you ask them what they installed they
will say... "QNX Momentics". ...and there is your problem. The NC/SE/PE just
plain disappear from most people's minds and they perceive only ONE PRODUCT.
Unfortunatly, that perception results in THREE PRODUCTS that all have the same
name, and _THAT_ is what is so damned confusing about the whole Momentics name
thing.

Cheers,
Camz.

Post Reply

Return to “qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy”