This thread http://forums.netobjects.com/showthr...2464#post42464

my last post,

well, when you are running a small business, and you are the boss, well, sometimes you go looking for trouble, and sometimes trouble goes looking for you.....
:lol:

Having a shared development platform would be cool, but all I'm doing is sharing the NOD on a drive. Takes care of collisions on development when u use sneakernet that way.

And since I have probably more years of software development and design management than most users, your statement

No one is going to say what is in the pipe for any software company. It just doesn't happen that way.
is flat out wrong.

Your two available options are:

1. No - NOF is EOL(end of life), and we are not presently working on upgrades, patches, new versions or enhancements.

As you may be well aware, the cost of $50 or even $200 is infinitesimal to the opportunity cost of hours, weeks, and months of staff training on a package. Not to mention the years of work that go into maintaining a website, if you are doing it on your own. Browsers change, Apache changes, php changes, google has new requirements for css and js serving, and being stuck on a platform that has zero chance of addressing these pressing issues, risks $$$$ that far exceed the cost of the software.

2. Yes - NOF has a development team, and we are working on a release at some future time. It could come next week, next month, next year, two years from now, depends on how hard we work, but we are at least coding shit. Hey, things are going so badly, we might throw all the code out and start over from scratch, but yes we are coding.

I really don't care about a when, because it is what it is, and you are correct about "freezing" purchases. But you're sadly mistaken to think users shouldn't care if their software platform is EOL or not. Because they do.

I might feel comfortable in letting my staff continue on NOF knowing that at least we might be able to import in our old sites if a new version of NOF or a new app comes out from a "related" team. Otherwise, it might be time to migrate to a new platform, as painful and EXPENSIVE as that might be.

Weirdly enough, NOF could enjoy a renaissance due to Google's new-found religion of site speed. NOF's creation of static HTML is not a bad thing, especially if you change your main page text often.

I've spent the last week in the underbelly of google's site ranking algorithms, and I can guarantee you that google is not sitting still and are pushing for tighter and tighter code and they are enforcing that by rewarding sites with higher rankings that comply.

So I'm currently running NOF 10, purchased way back in 07 and ignored the 11 launch due to the company confusion, which is water under the bridge. And we've limped along. With three websites that enjoy page ranks of 6 and top 3 placements in our key words. The sites are ugly, but they work.
and the lack of a reply by Net Objects Fusion, implies to me that someone has the source code, is receiving a declining revenue stream, and has stopped all development to just milk out the last remaining value of what was once a good product.

I think whoever is receiving the money owes the users of NOF the courtesy of a reply.

There is nothing embarrassing about acknowledging a software product has reached it's end of life.

All things die.

Revenue will continue to trickle in, because NOF still meets the needs of a target user group.


But car salesman, weasel answer, which I have seen this user post in other threads, is bullshit, and I'm calling you out on it. The answer given, from another thread too,

Quote Originally Posted by gotFusion View Post
Most companies learned from the Osborne fiasco back in the mid 80's and would never announce anything that is happening unless it were already at the release stage. Back in the mid 80's Osborne computers had a very slick "lugable" They announced that they were working on an updated version of this successful product. Well all of a sudden their sales stopped dead as everyone who had interest in their product put off purchasing to see what was coming. This combined with a few other faux pas put them into bankruptcy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_1#After_Chapter_11
is exactly the reply one would give if my thread title and revenue annuity hypothesis is true.