I agree that the Free Market is indeed a wonderful thing, and I understand the "pride" and desire to "protect" one's "baby" but that desire can be tremendously counter productive. When I was working in venture capital I saw it often and in the VC community they call it the "shopkeeper's mentality." And no, I am not accusing Rob of anyone else of that. I don't have enough facts to do that.
Still, I have seen many "solid" businesses ultimately destroyed by the very entrepreneur who built it, because of this very issue. As you say, the "proof is in the pudding" and in that sense, it makes no sense to be so "testy" about the comments of others. If the product is indeed as strong is it has been "put out" to be, then the market will validate it, or crush it. Getting "testy" about it only adds to the problems the product might face in the adoption curve. Not a good thing.
Part of the problem, from my observation of the issues here, is that many seem to have thought (rightly or wrongly) that the AspDotNetStoreFront solution was to be a "core" replacement for the Store module. Obviously that is not so, but it would probably go a long way if they had a "free" solution much like SysDatanet does, which handles a lot of the "small" fry issues, and has all the "meaty" parts of the solution locked unless purchased.
To be honest, from a marketing perspective that probably makes the most sense as it provides an almost guaranteed adoption curve into the community, AND would give them a great mailing list to market the "upgrades" to, which would be much less expensive, even if he does have a waiting list a mile long. One thing you can never have too much of is a list of potential customers and "add on" sales to those potential customers.
That, in VC circles is called the "Little more pregnant" theory. If you can get a potentail client a "little more pregnant" with your solution each time you interact with them, you eventually have an evangelist for your solution, if done properly. Now I'm giving away some VC "secrets." Oh, well..
IF Rob were to take a step toward "stair stepping" his solution, he probably could address the vast majority of issues.
1) a "free" version with limited capacity either by products permitted in the catalog, or by having some of the "back end" turned off unless licensed, but other wise free for an unlimited number of sites/portals. This "tradeoff" would gain a huge share of "market capital" for him to work with going forward and from which he could "mine" endlessly for new and more advanced/paying clients.
2) a "mid-range" solution that could be licensed per DNN instance, not per site which would allow a few more features, but by no means a complete list of all things ADNSF. This would increase market share, increase revenues, "train" existing clients in "new" features and functions and prepare them for additional "upgrading" as time progresses.
3) a slightly less than "complete" vesion that could also be licensed in one of two ways, per instance (higher fee) or per site, (lower fee). This again would increase market share, train existing clients on even better and more robust funcitons/features, etc.
5) and finally, the "whole" solution based on DNN. This could again have a dual licensing model for much the same reasons, leading to a 6th and final licensing model
6) Custom Licensing. Pricing would be unlimited, based on client design and input. Could lead to additional features which could be "down streamed" to some of the other licensing models for additional revenues from those clients.
My dismay is often that people get "tunnel visioned" in their view of their solution. Happens a lot to programmes and often leaves tons of money on the table, undermines their "market capital" and adoption curves etc. Often it can even lead to the failure of an otherwise strong product line.
Being dismissive, or arrogant was precisely the WRONG response. The right response is to "entertain" suggestions, even if ultimately those suggestions are NOT implemented. It makes the "community" feel valued, often leads to insights that other wise, (as shown above) would have been completely missed.
Ok,,, now for a really, really BIG can of worms. DNN itself has this very same type of potential from a market standpoint. There is absoutely no reason why DNN Corp can't or even perhaps shouldn't have a "commercial" version which could come with all sorts of neat (and profitable for DNN AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY) solutions. Even customization solutions in which DNN would "pass along" to "qualified" developers, much as Mitchell does, opportunities in the business arena.
Bottom line is that Ford, Chevy, Sony, many software companies have all learned the extremely profitable business model of having multiple product lines for mulitple segments of the market. Not everyone can afford, or even wants a "high end" Corvette, Pantera, or such, some what a Chevette or a Focus. If you already have the majority of the "work" (coding in this case) done, why not please the market place and not anger it? Why not provide several differing models that would bring the community "into" the process instead of alienating lots of it?
Ok,,, that's enough of this tirade. Hope I helped smoothe some feathers, illustrated the counterproductive nature of the responses given and perhaps illustated a way for ADNSF to "give back" to a community that has built DNN and at the same time, increase it's own marketshare, market capital (aka adoptance, acceptance, respect, etc.) and perhaps even its own profits.
By the way, Nina, being the sharp cookie she is gives away some "freebies" too and from what I have seen, it goes a long, long way to helping increase her community standing, exposure and acceptance. That my friends, is just plain smart. Retail stores call it "loss leader" selling. VC's call it "get them a little more pregnant." Smart business professionals call it profits.
Clay