Need one more camera
Am I right that if I need just 1 more camera licence it's still going to cost me £299 as I have 8 now. I'm sorry to keep harping on about it but it just does not sit well with me as an existing user when a first time purchaser has the option of paying only £29.90 to buy 1 licence.
Seriously - when are you going to allow users to buy (add) the exact number of licenses they need.
Seriously - when are you going to allow users to buy (add) the exact number of licenses they need.
Comments
I have a Synology NAS that has Surveillance Station software and I've offloaded some of my less critical cameras to that system (it came with 2 free camera licenses) so that I can stay within my 8 camera license. I plan to stick with Security Spy, because it integrates fairly well with my home automation system (indigo) and I admire Ben's responsiveness and engagement with his users, but surveillance station has been useful for the extra cameras, for redundancy, and for determining if a problem is camera/network related or software related.
It's been working well for such a long time so we have no immediate plans to change it, but we may do so in the future, as I'm sure it does put some users off from upgrading in certain circumstances. However we would have to look at this very carefully and may have to adjust the per-camera price if we change the whole structure.
I now have a 16 camera license, but will never be able to use all those camera slots because my iMac CPU simply won't handle more than 12 cameras. I don't think many of us have a heavy enough a Mac to handle 32 or 64 cameras.
That leaves levels 1, 4, 8, 16 as the only actual choices for us mortals. The start of each level is expensive/camera for the user. The end of the level feels a bargain provided by the developer. The problem is the increment for going beyond the last camera of a level is geometrically higher and nearly always going to be on the lower end of the next level - the expensive/camera end. Coupled with the geometric rather than linear progression between levels and you really discourage users from upgrading unless really forced by circumstances.
I would be happy buying up from level to level if the steps were closer together even if the progression was still geometric.
1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32
Even more palatable to move up, if steps were more linear
1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32
Basically, get the steps small enough that each increment stays below the threshold that one thinks whether it is worth the cost. Painless gets the buy click before one gets a chance to vacillate.
:-)