Good question. You know I've been an Harman's supporter lately, but at this time, I must admit I have mixed feelings. I think that, as a price model for a good tech, the fees are pretty fair, so we can't really blame Harman for that price grid. Unity is cheaper, but their audience is much larger, for example. But of course, there is also the recent tension surrounding this transition from Adobe to Harman, and I can't help but feel some hesitations here. I'll try to express my feelings about this, hopefully it will be useful to Harman. First, a few words about my case: I'm an indie dev, with a collection of apps (some actively developed, some legacy). My model is based on creating apps which include contents from other authors, which means that about half of my raw income goes to my partners. It means that, given Harman's conditions, I'll have to pay for Professional tier, even if my real income corresponds to the Personal tier. I suppose that not many people are in such a case though, so I'll consider I'm a pretty specific case here. Now some random thoughts: - People have always been able to publish AIR apps for free, and no splash screens. If tomorrow I had to republish all my apps with a splash screen, my customers would probably flood me with complaints about this useless / ugly splash screen. So basically, whatever my revenue, I'll have no choice but to pay for a splashscreen-free version. - Just to replace things in context, people were expecting Adobe to handle the 64bits Android issue, and they didn't. Some people felt betrayed, and now feel almost forced to pay to get the 64bits support. I even read the word "blackmail" in some posts here and there. - In Harman's document, it is stated that Harman will require audit data to evaluate our revenues, so the right tier is applied. Personally, this is probably what bothers me the most, as I already do enough accountability work right now, and don't want to have extra paper work to do. Moreover, I think it immediately installs a climate of suspicion between devs and Harman, where we'll have to prove our honesty. Not a great way to start a partnership, if you ask me. In the current situation, I think Harman has as much to prove as we do, if not more. - If I understood Harman's document properly, if you change tiers (and for example go back to Free tier), then you'll have to repackage your apps so they contain the splash screen. As explained above, this is not something I want to do for my customers (who don't give a damn about the tech I use). So it means that if I update all my Android apps to 64bit, even the old legacy ones, I'll have to pay for them in the long term (even if they don't make much money, and I don't plan to make them evolve, and just keep them as is in my catalogue). I know why Harman chose this rule: to prevent people from paying for one month, publish their app, then cancel the subscription. But I really believe that if people are serious about their apps, and want to maintain them, they won't cancel their subscription every other day to save a few bucks. By listing the points above, I realize it's a pretty big pill to swallow for me, and that Harman's rules feel a bit too coercive, especially those audit and repackaging parts. In those kinds of situations, the first thing you're generally tempted to ask is: "OK, if I follow the rules, pay $1000 upfront for next year, accept to attach my apps to this paid version of AIR where I can't really go back to a free tier later, and am ready to prove I'm a honest person with extra paper work, what do I get in return?". Right now, the only thing I seem to get is Android 64bit support. Something I thought would be done for free by Adobe. Despite all my will to support Harman (as I know they're not responsible for the Adobe fiasco), it leaves a slightly bitter taste in my mouth. I think that when you ask devs to make an effort, you also have to show them they're getting something nice in return, not just the right to keep doing something they did for years. In that regard, I think it would have been necessary to publish a rough roadmap at the same time as announcing the prices, so people feel they're betting on the future. Also, I think Harman should have shown more trust towards devs, by saying "OK, we trust you, so we know you'll pay the right tier. And on the other hand, we ask you to trust us, and our commitment to AIR." But trust can't be only one way. So if they ask us for money without any concrete commitment on the future, and at the same time, tell us they'll audit our accountability to be sure we're not trying to fraud, there's something that really doesn't feel good here. Ultimately, I think I'll pay the subscription for this year. My work depends too much on AIR at this time. But my next thought is about what I'll do next year: will I believe in Harman, or migrate to a tech that offers me more guarantees for my money? I like what I saw right now with Andrew's commitment and communication, but I think we need more to be convinced our money will be well used. I know this is a difficult transition, and that there is a lot to do, so I want to trust them and give them the benefit of the doubt. But they must be aware they're walking a very thin line here, and that trust can be lost very quickly, especially now that money is involved.
... View more