Conrad wrote: Our mobile client has its own versioning and so far this app is free. We haven't decided yet what licensing model we are going to use for it when we add more significant features to the client (namely, the full-fledged address book). There are different options that we are considering.
I suggest starting an Android Licensing Discussion" to help guide how you can best proceed, where you get the most support from users, while preserving your revenue source. As a software CEO/CTO for over 35 years, it is a difficult issue, but your users can and will help you more than you realize. I'm here because I've been totally disgusted wasting my time trying to use [censored] as a home user, and also see their commercial licensing models to be so abysmal that I would never recommend any company use them, unless required. Lack of flexibility is something that you can beat them with fairly easily, with the proper "internal rule guidance", by using the fixed policies and overriding them quite often, when it makes sense. Growing large numbers of loyal supporters can drive success, and only charging when: it "makes business sense" for the business customer, when they have the free funds available to spend, and both the technical and business decision makers are motivated to try to reward your company.
Android issues Counting the clients you are connecting TO, from a PHONE seems OK, since the clients are PCs. So, keeping the Android free seems to me to make the most sense.
(I'd simply call the PCs "Connected CLIENTS", [I'm the "console MASTER, BOSS" or something like it, connecting TO the CLIENT], to make it easy for new users to differentiate "hosts" from "agents", which often get confusing, differing functions for various PC and server companies for both hardware and software. [ONLY engineers would normally call the UI software, a "client", and the NON UI piece, "server" or "agent", even if technically correct. When using, "I AM the operator", "and operate or connect on, or to, OTHER CLIENTS."] )
These clients can be controlled by phones on an occasional basis, but not for long sessions. They are critical but short times perhaps, but no one in their right mind want to connect to their PCs, ala RDP, and compose anything. I used and still used Meraki's 100 client (was free) host management, and only connected 2 times in 6 years for five minutes, to PCs from a phone. Connect to the phone from the PC?? Only if I have to. Would I pay for either functionality? I doubt it. Yet, that product might be a "check mark" requirement that, although no one would pay for it, but it would help get a large client.
I do have one question though, (which I can post separately, and that I think I know the answer to already) --- I have two PCs we use more than anything, and mostly use MY PC to connect to other PCs. But, if at the keyboard of one of the other PCs and need to get something from my PC, can I easily connect to my PC to do so? i.e., is this considered to be "another tech license", and so would not normally be able to connect because of licensing issues, or technical issues, such as a lack of centralized common client list?
I'd better stop and get my own work done. Let me know if you'd like more of my "independent CEO opinions" on licensing software. Happy New Year! Nice product line, and I hope to test it more.
Regarding mobile client licensing (Android and iOS) - we are not planning to make it paid in the near future, at least not with the current feature set. The address book in the mobile client remains very basic (essentially a list) and we won't even start thinking about other-than-free licencing model before this is improved and the mobile client gets a full-fledged address book.
--- I have two PCs we use more than anything, and mostly use MY PC to connect to other PCs. But, if at the keyboard of one of the other PCs and need to get something from my PC, can I easily connect to my PC to do so? i.e., is this considered to be "another tech license", and so would not normally be able to connect because of licensing issues, or technical issues, such as a lack of centralized common client list?
Our licensing is per concurrent tech. If you have a 1-tech license you can open a remote session (or even multiple simultaneous sessions) from any one Viewer workstation at a time.
I am using the Android app to view a remote PC and it appears that each log on is being counted as a new connection. Remote Utilities now claims I have 10 connections when there is just one PC and one Android mobile used to view the host PC.
Could you please clarify if I'm right in assuming that you're using one Viewer on your PC to connect to a remote Host machine and a mobile version of Viewer on your Android device? If this is the case, then please note that our mobile client has its own versioning and so far the mobile Viewer app is free, i.e. there is no need to register it with a license and there's no limitation on the number of records for the mobile Viewer.
In addition, please clarify if you're getting the 10 connection error in the Viewer that's used on your PC? If this is the case, please double-check if you have the AD tree displaying enabled in the Viewer's Navigation pane? If you do, please try enabling the Hide default domain controller feature in the Viewer options, on the Misc tab:
This might be causing the issue as the computers in the tree also count against your license. So if this is the case, you are advised to add the computers you need from your AD to your address book and disable showing the AD tree in Viewer.