Community

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.

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.