Hello,
I have recently become a customer of the VSL (I ordered three of the Horizon Series modules). I have been reading and contributing to this forum for a while now and have finally decided to take the plunge. However it was not without some trepidation. I am having some difficulty with the license agreement, specifically the inability to transfer the license to a third party should I decide I no longer want to use the product. So I'd like to open a constructive dialog about this issue.
I am a hobbyist as far as my use for this product is concerned so I fall into a class of customer that is probably atypical of the customer base to date (given the price of the products until recently).
Let me preface my comments with the fact that I am extremely impressed with the quality of the products and the people involved in producing these products. I only want to see VSL succeed and so it is with this in mind that I offer the following comments.
The license transfer policy seems like a bad business decision to me for the following reasons: It is economically undesirable for VSL, it's economically undesirable for the customer, it creates ill will among the users, it minimizes the potential customer base, it's contrary to general practices in the software business, it doesn't make sense for a company that wants to grow. I'll address each of these points further.
1. It's economically undesirable for VSL - VSL needs to spend time money and resources enforcing this policy. I recently witnessed an ebay transaction for a VSL product that after the auction was completed, both buyer and seller were informed that the transaction could not be completed because it would violate the terms of the license. Apparently the seller did not know this was the policy (who reads the license agreements anyway). The buyer, a potential future customer of VSL is now likely not to become a customer. The seller basically has a worthless asset for which he paid a lot of money and for which he has no further interest. This creates ill will among the parties involved.
2. It's economically undesirable for the customer - A no transfer policy means that once the product becomes not useful to that person, it is a worthless asset. I certainly understand that if re-sales occur, then that is potential money that does not get into the hands of VSL. However, for every resale, this is a new customer that is likely to buy additional products at a later time. And it is also more likely than not that the seller of the license will buy alternative products from VSL. I think a lot of the issues with the 1st edition vs. Horizon series would not have occurred had the transfer policy been different.
3. It creates ill will among the users - One cannot help but see people become extremely disgruntled when the find they have a worthless asset for which they paid thousands of dollars. Turns out the seller of the ebay auction mentioned above happens to also work at a music store. Guess what - that person won't have many good things to say about VSL to people who ask his opinion about sampling technologies.
4. It minimizes the potential customer base - The best way to increase sales is to provide a way for people to obtain products through whatever avenue is available. Re-sales create new customers. These customers come back to buy more products. The sellers of a resale will more likely than not continue to purchase other products so you don't just replace one customer with another one. You increase the user base.
5. It's contrary to general practices in the software business - This needs no further explanation.
6. It doesn't make sense for a company that wants to grow - if VSL had a single product or wanted to restrict its customer base in some way, then this policy might make sense (although I don't see the logic still). But with the growing list of products and those on the drawing board it seems that to grow the company, you want as liberal a transfer policy as possible to attract and maintain the most customers.
Sorry this is so long. Hopefully it will spawn a discussion that will have a positive impact on the license policy.
I have recently become a customer of the VSL (I ordered three of the Horizon Series modules). I have been reading and contributing to this forum for a while now and have finally decided to take the plunge. However it was not without some trepidation. I am having some difficulty with the license agreement, specifically the inability to transfer the license to a third party should I decide I no longer want to use the product. So I'd like to open a constructive dialog about this issue.
I am a hobbyist as far as my use for this product is concerned so I fall into a class of customer that is probably atypical of the customer base to date (given the price of the products until recently).
Let me preface my comments with the fact that I am extremely impressed with the quality of the products and the people involved in producing these products. I only want to see VSL succeed and so it is with this in mind that I offer the following comments.
The license transfer policy seems like a bad business decision to me for the following reasons: It is economically undesirable for VSL, it's economically undesirable for the customer, it creates ill will among the users, it minimizes the potential customer base, it's contrary to general practices in the software business, it doesn't make sense for a company that wants to grow. I'll address each of these points further.
1. It's economically undesirable for VSL - VSL needs to spend time money and resources enforcing this policy. I recently witnessed an ebay transaction for a VSL product that after the auction was completed, both buyer and seller were informed that the transaction could not be completed because it would violate the terms of the license. Apparently the seller did not know this was the policy (who reads the license agreements anyway). The buyer, a potential future customer of VSL is now likely not to become a customer. The seller basically has a worthless asset for which he paid a lot of money and for which he has no further interest. This creates ill will among the parties involved.
2. It's economically undesirable for the customer - A no transfer policy means that once the product becomes not useful to that person, it is a worthless asset. I certainly understand that if re-sales occur, then that is potential money that does not get into the hands of VSL. However, for every resale, this is a new customer that is likely to buy additional products at a later time. And it is also more likely than not that the seller of the license will buy alternative products from VSL. I think a lot of the issues with the 1st edition vs. Horizon series would not have occurred had the transfer policy been different.
3. It creates ill will among the users - One cannot help but see people become extremely disgruntled when the find they have a worthless asset for which they paid thousands of dollars. Turns out the seller of the ebay auction mentioned above happens to also work at a music store. Guess what - that person won't have many good things to say about VSL to people who ask his opinion about sampling technologies.
4. It minimizes the potential customer base - The best way to increase sales is to provide a way for people to obtain products through whatever avenue is available. Re-sales create new customers. These customers come back to buy more products. The sellers of a resale will more likely than not continue to purchase other products so you don't just replace one customer with another one. You increase the user base.
5. It's contrary to general practices in the software business - This needs no further explanation.
6. It doesn't make sense for a company that wants to grow - if VSL had a single product or wanted to restrict its customer base in some way, then this policy might make sense (although I don't see the logic still). But with the growing list of products and those on the drawing board it seems that to grow the company, you want as liberal a transfer policy as possible to attract and maintain the most customers.
Sorry this is so long. Hopefully it will spawn a discussion that will have a positive impact on the license policy.
