Encoding Frustations of a Programmer

[alex042]

Has anyone else noticed the influx of applications that are now encoded? Whatever happened to plain old php code? It now seems like a lot of stuff is starting to utilize zend or ion cube encoding or some other form of encoding. It's becoming more difficult everyday for a programmer to tweak the scripts to get it to do what they want it to do. And waiting for the application developers is sometimes very time consuming. There may be times when the time element is crucial to a process and some authors may not make the changes necessary or there may be an extended delay between releases. This may mean someone would need to purchase another application to do the missing features which may then become useless and wasted money if it ends up being incorporated into the program anyway at a later date.

It's kind of like the auto mechanic who doesn't have a key to release the hood on his own car he bought from someone in order to fix the car and has to wait in line at another auto mechanics shop for them to fix it. And thats if they will even do it. That mechanic may refuse to put on that supercharger you know will work on it or they may tell you that they'll add it to the list and tell you to come back a few weeks later even though you know it's only a couple hour job.

Are there any other programmers who have encountered this or is it just me?

[tranz]

Yes, but why would a programmer or a company take the time to build an application and then just basicly give it away?

I understand your reasoning but you have to understand ours.

We bought Renax Solutions not to long ago. They were giving the source out for Edge Panel. Why should we continue to do the same? We are a business and in business to make a profit. We just bought Typical Geek, they too were doing the same thing. We changed that as well.

What some people seem to not realize is that there are people on the other end that have to pay bills just like you do. We just cant give stuff away for free and hope to make ends meet.

I have found since turning a frely given app into one that is paid is that there is very little problems with us doing that. it helps cover the costs of development, marketing ect. Thus, the more we sell the more we profit the better and faster it allows us to develop or refine the applications we have.

Just becuase I own the company does mean I am driving a Porsche.

We are looking into a developer solution that would allow select developer partners access to the source code in the near future.

Bottom line is that those of us that do encode our applications do it because there have been countless hours put into it and we want to get something for those hours worth of work.

[alex042]

I realize some of the reasoning behind this, but I thought I'd do some ranting on the subject. It can be frustrating sometimes to get a product customized to someones specific needs without paying an arm and a leg unless the customizations are done inhouse.

Also, some of these activations and licensing are just as frustrating. I can think of one example right off hand in which this became an issue. A product, which I'm sure you're more than familiar with, requires an activation and I believe periodically would check back with the licensing server. Unfortunately, this became an issue when the licensing server wasn't available and several licenses were basically deactivated or whatever it happened to do. Although these were legitimate licenses, since they couldn't reach the licensing server, they became useless therefore basically stopping new business for those hosts. Like encoding, this is used for a similar purpose, but can be a serious issue if something like this example happens too often.

This is why I prefer non-activated buy-out licenses with modifiable code. I don't like being dependant on whether the original coder or their server is still alive for the program I bought to function.

[bear]

I couldn't agree more, alex042. While I understand Tranz's point (and agree with protecting your work), from the aspect of someone like myself that can hunt down and fix many issues, or tweak scripts for their own needs, encoding is terrible.
I have one issue right now where the author has encrypted a section of his code that breaks functionality when skinned into a layout of mine. It would take me about 15 seconds to fix...and I've been waiting over a week now for the author, since I can't access it.
Like you, I prefer buyout with full source when i can justify the cost vs delays

[tranz]

I totaly understand the both of you and your concerns and needs. With our licensing server if it goes off-line or blows up clients application will still continue to function and will not become inactive.

What happens with a business model on one which you have full source and just a buyout is that, that could be the only sale the company makes to you.

We could sell an application and then not hear back from you for 3 years. If you can fix it yourself then you dont need to pay for support yearly ect. Thats a good way of shooting yourself in the foot over a long term in business.

We have found that the recurring business model works best for us and our clients over long term. A small yearly fee in some cases is easier to take then one larger one.

Although, we are looking into different solutions that would allow advanced users, those that can fix their own code to purchasing a developer license, with restrictions as far as the licensing files that called home would still be encoded and non-removeable.

[bear]

I have no problem generally with the licensing files being encrypted and required, as long as the program continues to function if your company ceases operation, or the servers fall down for an extended period.
It's the operation of the program, especially with skinning, layout and basic operation where many of us can fix our own faster than developers can offer a solution that works for everyone.

As for shooting yourself in the foot, if I buy your program for a large fee to avoid the encryption issue, I consider that an investment in the future use of the program. If I'm paying 3-4+ times the typical yearly fees for this privilege, I should get several years of use out of it before I *need* to buy an upgrade.
Obviously you will have made improvements to the program in the meanwhile, and I would then be willing to pay for these changes (again, at an increased rate).
In that respect, you're not truly losing anything, are you?
If I can't adapt your scripts to my sites or needs without relying solely on your schedule, I may not buy at all...
Just my 2 cents...

[alex042]

I was just looking at a program the other day where they wanted around $150 for the encoded version or $250 for the programmers version. This would give both techie and non-techie an option and at a fairly close price considering what they'd both be getting.

I've noticed that some company's only allow tweaking of certain skinning templates, but this somewhat limiting and wouldn't help someone who wants to change more than just a template.

Maybe what's needed is a compromise. Even if the programmers version still left some licensing portions or certain proprietary functions encoded, it would still benefit the consumer over a fully encoded application. I don't mind some pieces encoded as long as I could tweak how something else works in the program.

And even if a company locks down functions by encrypting those functions, as long as I could get into the rest of the script and call whichever functions I wanted, it might be helpful in certain circumstances. With this, the driving force behind the program is still proprietary, but it could be utilized in the end consumers specific application without waiting for the author to make changes.