piquet - all messages by user

2013/4/11 11:23:53
Watermark: new terms of use I'm sure they are aware of it.

No one is objecting to them making a profit from their product, but for their sake, and ours, it needs to be a realistic and fair price. This pricing structure is way off being acceptable to many people.
2013/4/11 10:52:00
Watermark: new terms of use Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't our computer do the rendering? Soooo in actuality, muvizu want to charge us £5 a minute to use OUR computer, OUR electricity and OUR time!

On a more serious note.....On their 'commercial use' link at the bottom of the page.....

"Muvizu:Play may only be exploited for commercial use once you have paid to remove the watermark. Don’t worry, this is an easy, in-app purchase. We call the activity of paying for watermark-free footage a ‘Content Upgrade.’ Once you’ve got your watermark-free footage then you have our permission to exploit it for commercial use."

This reads, in my opinion, as a one off payment. 'Content upgrade' assumes the same. Nowhere is it stated that the content upgrade will need to be purchased per movie.
edited by piquet on 11/04/2013
2013/4/10 23:02:20
Watermark: new terms of use urbanlamb wrote:
piquet wrote:
Sometimes the truth hurts!

Actually I'm pretty sure you can now get iclone4 free and still use it for commercial uses. It's the content packs you have to pay for.

It is pricey and I agree they need to change their thinking on it. I dont agree you have to call people names and generally do the bnet flame thing. If you were to do that in real life you likely would have had someone hang up on you if it was a phone conversation or be ignored or asked to leave.

If you came into my office and said these things I would have you escorted away and the door slammed in your face. There is no need to bare your teeth and start brow beating people and calling them names. In this case they strike me as quite the opposite.

Its clear they might not have done a great deal of market research before launching this price plan. They did ask for input and people were honest who were reasonable about trying to put on a price tag they didnt seem to take the input that seriously though or maybe were in a rush to launch the thing. I dont anticipate they will be making a great many sales with this structure and they will notice that and rethink things. For me its business as usual unfortunately the project i had wanted to move into muvizu that was sitting on the sidelines however will be done in iclone because although it is a commercial project there is no way that prices are cost effective and will turn any sort of profit.

At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles and unfortunately wont be seen as viable for most things. Lets hope that changes

edited by urbanlamb on 10/04/2013

By your own comment "At present muvizu has the highest prices in the industry by miles....." Yes, its called greed.
Ripoff, in case you don't know the word, is a company charging highly inflated, and unjustified prices that exceed the actual value of the product or service. See item one 'Greed'
Nasty because not only is it mean to users it also shows lack of consideration for them or any understanding of the market value of their own product.
Controlling because they don't want to sell the software.

Calling names? I don't think so, it's just stating the obvious....without being subtle.
edited by piquet on 10/04/2013
2013/4/10 13:04:04
Watermark: new terms of use The other alternative is to put a price on assets, also, take a commission on third party uploads. Sell 'improvements' to the software, upgrades, enhancements etc. But please...not exorbitant charges, make them affordable and you will sell more.

Give the software for free but without all the packs, just a starter pack to allow a movie to be made and to whet the appetite.
2013/4/10 12:16:49
Watermark: new terms of use I am not objecting to them putting a price on removal of the watermark, I object to the amount they expect, that users who wish to remove the watermark will have to pay reoccurring charges on every video they produce and the fact that they will not put a price on buying the software.

Removal of the watermark should be a one off payment, as is the case with the majority, (If not all) of the other software that output a watermark on the finished work.
2013/4/10 12:00:54
Watermark: new terms of use Sometimes the truth hurts!

Actually I'm pretty sure you can now get iclone4 free and still use it for commercial uses. It's the content packs you have to pay for.
2013/4/10 11:42:11
Watermark: new terms of use How, exactly, is that a rude comment!?
2013/4/10 11:19:28
Watermark: new terms of use Right!

I advise you to read ALL the posts above and not pick one post out of context!
2013/4/10 10:56:04
Watermark: new terms of use Yes, I'm sure we are all fully aware that it can still be done free, but my point was if we decide to pay for removal it doesn't end there because every video we make, (per video) we will have to pay a charge.

You should really try to resist jumping in before you understand what is written.
2013/4/10 10:40:38
Watermark: new terms of use Yes, but the charge is per video, so my original point stands.

You are just waffling.
2013/4/10 10:30:05
Watermark: new terms of use What a ripoff! This charge is for every video you make, not a one off payment! You could end up paying thousands of pounds to these controlling, greedy people, because you can't buy the software. Nasty!
2013/3/9 12:59:11
To the community at large I suggest that the majority of users of muvizu are not commercial enterprises, though many, I'm sure, would dream about hitting the big time with their muvizu movies.

Muvizu is not free, it has conditions. Users must advertise the product on every frame of a movie, and in this case, is a distraction, (Advertising usually costs the advertiser!) but if by some great piece of luck someone gets commercial interest from a business company, Muvizu wants a piece of the action. Sooo....not free. It is 'conditionally free'. Conditions that are not upfront on the opening page or even on the download page. That's sneaky. Most other free software that uses a 'watermark' have either a fee that will remove it from all future movies or purchasing the software will not require it. I know of no other 'free' software that wants a 'piece of the action' in addition to the watermark. Don't offer software as 'free' if there is a condition that allows you to demand payment from a user should his/her talent help them to be successful.

Offer a free version, with a fee for removal of the watermark. No free updates, unless bug fixes (One year) and only a basic pack to allow movies to be produced. I suggest £30.

Offer a purchase price for 'Enthusiasts' several packs included, no water mark, no financial requirement to pay anyone, anything once the software has been bought. Free updates for 18 months. I suggest £55

Offer a commercial version, for companies that will use the software to promote/sell or enhance their products/services. All packs available at the time, no watermarks but credit and link to muvizu. 2 years updates. Discount on any further packs purchased. I suggest £95

Charge for extra packs £10-30 depending on quantity and/or quality.
edited by piquet on 09/03/2013
edited by piquet on 09/03/2013
pages: 1