My recent thread

Bill -VA3WTB

We know what you mean Jon.
As you read above were Gerald explains some of this, what features to bring in or not,  even then you still mention it. It is what it is.

Ria

Here's one reason why that won't work - unless you commit people to a steady subscription, they will just subscribe only when the new features come out so they can get it. It's like the debate over pre-existing conditions and health insurance. Why pay $900 per month on health insurance if I'm not sick? I'll just take out a policy when I need it. That's why either it has to be a license for the software or the current policy of major version releases incurring a charge.

Bill -VA3WTB

To work, you pay up or your radio stops working, seems to be the only way to keep people invested?

Ria

That seems to be the only way a subscription would work unless you collect the subscriptions up front on an annual basis and make them nonrefundable. That's how most other software maintenance agreements work. 

There is the issue of paying "rent" to use my own radio, something I'm vehemently opposed to. 

Jon_KF2E

The problem with the current model is that Flex apparently needs to continually develop new hardware to generate the funds to keep the doors open. With all the new hardware, programming resources are needed to support the new hardware. This seems to have us in a continual cycle where there is no financial reason for Flex to work on the feature list that customers are asking for. At least those customers who are not interested in contesting. 

I understand completely that Flex needs to make decisions that are good for the business. Really, I get it. I'm just trying to find a way that we can provide support to the boring old hams who work a little DX and rag chew so they can get some of the features they want. That's why I said I would support a subscription. It seems the only way the features I(and others) want to have will ever see the light of day.

Jon...kf2e

Peter K1PGV

No, Ria... I don't suggest that's now how it should work. It can be a little more sophisticated. You pay continuously for support. You can pay $10/month or $110/year. This entitles you to updates during that time. Your support expires, your radio continues to work. You just don't get updates. You want updates AFTER your support expires, you have to BUY SSDR again. Or perhaps you can pay the maintenance fee from when it expired to the current time. So, if I stop paying in January but I all of a sudden want the updates that come out in April, I have to pay support for January, February, March, and April. i think having to pay a monthly fee or your.radio,stops,working,would be VERY unpopular. That's not a model I would support, that's for,sure. Peter K1PGV

Ria

And many of those features I don't really need, such as DX cluster in the panadapter. It goes back to what Gerald was saying - my feature may not be your feature. So they have to prioritize. Unfortunately the contesters spend the megabucks, the average "boring old ham" does not. Contesters also showcase the radio moreso than casual ops. Therefore contesters features get prioritized. That's the way it is with every manufacturer of a high end radio. 

Maybe we are looking at the wrong solution. Maybe the solution is to price software license feature packs that you can buy for your radio. If you want the eye candy and a built in logbook, there's a pack for that. If you want contesting features, there's a separate pack for that. Marcus somewhat does that with iOS. He has in-app purchases for the features and not everyone needs all the features. I have a feeling that may work better to fund app development and it would be a really good way to decide what features deserve further development and which do not.

Ria

Bill -VA3WTB

With all the new hardware, programming resources are needed to support the new hardware.
Not really true. Gerald said new hardware is needed to generate funds for software development, the cost to make software is maga, they could never charge any were close to what is needed to support the cost of software development.

And any software upgrades are for all the 6000 radios not just the new models. Flex has turned over to the V2 witch works on all 6000 radios.

Jon_KF2E

You may be right. That way I don't have to pay for SO2R or WAN but can get the features I want. I think the Chinese menu approach could help by funding features based on demand.

Jon...kf2e

Gerald-K5SDR

Jon, hardware sales are the only current revenue model to pay for software enhancements. No hardware sales no software development.

Jon_KF2E

Gerald, I get it. I'm just looking for way to support enabling other new features in SSDR. 

Please give us a way to support the development of features not tied to new hardware or contesting.

Jon...kf2e

Ron W4RDM

How about a kickstarter project for funding the next generation of software after V2?

Bill -VA3WTB

You know Gerald, perhaps if you could delay the feature freez in V1 a bit, take a look at what people are really wanting finished, this woud show customers your listening and they won't feel so left behind?

Peter K1PGV

But you can't realistically ONLY have a "pay for the feature you need" model. Compnentization is hard, it creates massive testing burden with the various permutations, and -- worst of all -- it requires an up front investment before you can sell the enhancement. Now, you *can*'do this for major pieces of functionality... as long as the list doesn't get too unwieldy. You want WAN remote? That'll be $200... I like THAT idea a lot. "Feature packs"... Peter K1PGV

Mike W9OJ

It would be nice if the ANF worked.

Peter K1PGV

$110/yr for software maintenance and you have a much better chance of getting ANF, user-selectable colors, better ergos, you name it. Or, you know, wait for the sales of new radios to generate enough revenue to fund forward development and maintenance to the point where this becomes the top priority item., they take it off the list, and work on it. That's the choice we're trying to sketch here, Peter K1PGV

Ria

I don't think I want to pay subscription fees so I can select the colors, or have the DX cluster in the panadapter. That's all I'm saying. If people want those, then they should be given the option to do so. I consider those features to be close to useless for me. I want features that better enable contesting, performance and remote capability. 

The business model works for mobile development. In-app purchases are a major source for app developers.

Ria

Jon_KF2E

That's all I've been saying Ria. The current model apparently provides a path you like. I'm just looking for a path that provides what I want. I'm happy to pay, and I'm not trying to force the cost of changes you don't want on you. 

My hope is that this thread can provide options for Flex to meet the needs(wants) of a greater number of users. There are some of us who feel like we have fallen through the cracks.

Jon...kf2e

Steve K9ZW

Perhaps some of us have missed how important new models are to an organization, as the new products predictably will not only incorporate enhancements that may better fit end client expectations but as importantly they will hone & optimize production. The production per unit advantages are important to capture both to enhance revenues, but as critically to avoid non-value-added production costs (waste) that increases vulnerability to more efficiently produced competition. This is more true when the new products replace existing production rather than expand the product line produced. I'd argue the 6400 and 6600 are updates to leverage everything FRS has learned and cost optimize for both production cost and marketplace sell price reasons. Further the M-models are the only true product line expansion, and as the leverage the Maestro product through update & integration with the otherwise needed new 6400 and 6600 that they brilliantly expand product line appeal at a much lower cost (or resource drain) than a completely new product would have used. In the transformation to a software defined company the hardware still must be state of the art in effectiveness on both performance and cost-value. Remembering that there are industrial dynamics that simply require an effective producer to innovate or be replaced in the marketplace by more effective competitors we cannot be "High-Tech Luddites" expecting innovation to stagnate because we imagine we can artificially maintain marketplace supremacy for our purchase through stagnation. Kudos to FRS for redesigning a few models to better fit the marketplace's needs and improve margin on a unit basis. And more do for combining developed products with enough enhancement to carve out new marketplace positions with what arguably are largely already amoritized product development costs in the merged products. Hope I haven't bored too many of you as I wanted to wait until the usual emotional stuff started to settle before explaining why FRS needed to innovate core models, and how brilliant the M-models are from the product expansion aspects. 73 Steve K9ZW

James Whiteway

I think Flex Radio would have left the Amateur Radio market a long time ago if their current business model did not work. I have no problem with paying for a full version upgrade. Subscriptions (the kind that run out and no longer work if you stop paying for one reason or another) would not interest me at all. All these suggestions of doing otherwise, forget that not all Flex owners have a lot of disposable income and could turn away potential buyers of new hardware. James WD5GWY

Ria

I feel that a lower end radio like the 6300 can have all of the "casual operator" features, but a high performance radio should without a doubt have a strong feature set for power users. Those are DXers, weak signal ops and contesters. If your radio is primarily for chatting on 75m every night, you don't need those. 

Jon_KF2E

Personally I'm an avid DXer and I don't think the current development model supports my needs. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like different features for different models as you suggest is in the cards. We need a support model that can meet the needs of all users.

Jon...kf2e

Milen KG2C

Jon, just curious: what are the missing features , that the avid DXer needs?

km9r.mike

I think V 2.0 is way too inexpensive. In order to remote other brands , I am seeing close to $1000.00 in costs . I think $400.00 or $499.00 for V 2.0 is not unreasonable and a great deal considering the leading edge performance of Smartlink. 

Again congrats with the breakthroughs with the 6400 and 6600. I hope the rigs sell like no tomorrow. Thinking hard if I want to have a bunch of external filters for my 6700 (if even needed) or have them inside a 6600M along with it's amazing display and hdmi out.  Now only if maestro had an hdmi out , I would be very interested in the possibility of trading the 6700 for a 6600m plus a maestro w/ hdmi out. If maestro does not get hdmi out , then I would be content with controlling the remote 6700 w/ SSDR on the home pc.

Jon_KF2E

Personally, I would like to see a noise blanker that worked on the noise at my location. I would also like an ANF that worked. I would like an s-meter that was more readably. I would like automatic adjustment of the agc threshold. And yes, I would like to see spots in the panadapter. DX is not all I do, and I would also like to see band markers and integration with logging programs. I could go on but I doubt you really care.

Jon...kf2e

Michael Coslo

Where did you get those figures?

Wayne VK4ACN

I think US$200 is very reasonable.  That comes to AU$267
US$400 or US$499 is getting a bit expensive, that would come to AU$537 and AU$669.  I think that would leave a lot of people out who have limited incomes. Also after 1 July the Australian govt is putting 10% gst on everything coming into Australia, so that would make it more expensive. Not sure how they are going to do that with downloadable software though.  But im happy to pay the US$199, for more features to come.

G8ZPX

...and me. Send me your bank details!

EA4GLI

@ Ria, 
I think you meant  to post after my rant and not below this one, but I will continue here so it makes more continuity sense. 

First, I am not a native English speaker and it is sometimes tough to convey the exact "tone" and "meaning" in a different language. I really would like for you and other native speakers to be kind with posters from other countries that try their hardest to express themselves in a language that is not their mother tongue. I have seen several instances where foreigners are treated unkindly because they had trouble expressing correctly their opinions and their comments come across harsher that intended. I just cannot write with the polished accuracy of Steve.

I started my post with a  "sincere respect for all". I do not think I insulted anyone.... "But then some on the community come with a vicious tone and choose to attack people and attack Flex. Some are just fed up of it. How is insulting people going to convince them to help you? " I am hoping you are not referring to me or the other few that are critical but do not try to undermine but build greatness for our gear from the criticism.

New Hardware
I have no problem with new hardware. I love new hardware. Had FRS come up with a 6100 I would have put my own pre order..... or a VHF-UHF SDR radio!! Oh man... do I want one of those. And cheaper new hardware is great! Flex needed this hardware are a more attractive entry point. Seeing 2 xvrt ports in the 6600 and not in my 6700 stung a bit bit I will get over it.

My personal issue is the PERCEPTION from the outside of the priority of new hardware (Maestro, Amp, 6400, 6600) over FEATURES in the software for the last 2 years. After a vocal few display our displeasure it is when we start getting information. We get information about the need for hardware to get software, we get information about a couple of the features in the upcoming 2.0, we get a glimpse at SmartLink (which looks awesome!)...... but we get this info TOO LATE.

"In the end I think we need to step back, be a bit more constructive and if you really want to make a decision it is your money. If you think Elecraft, Anan or Icom can do better for you, go ahead and buy from them. That's your choice, your money."

This (that I can do whatever I please with my money) will always be the case. I find this statement (which is made over and over and over and over) insulting to the people posting here. And check this out, when the statement is made over and over but on defense of Flex no one comes here to say "This is why sometimes we really don't sympathize with the endless complaining. " There is a double standard... statements about what other brands do wrong are endless in this forum as means for a defense for FRS. I find them not needed and ultimately childish (but I already made that point in the previous rant).

Lets end with a more positive tone. I appreciate someone (you, Tim) replied to my post and I think us "endless whining complainers"   , have at least started a dialogue with Flex that had been lost for a while. I appreciate that Gerald came here and has posted a bunch of really insightful info and maybe good things will come out of this dialogue.

Steve G1XOW

Peter, not often we agree, and you know I am vocal on the rate of development, but...

I ENTIRELY AGREE WITH YOU, SIGN ME UP!