Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t cost anything to make FotoMagico.
I do not understand this discussion at all. Finally it’s not pay per view, it’s (effectively) pay, when you create a project. For me it would be once or twice a year, so effective cost: between 9 and 18 USD. So, in 10 years about 90 to 180 USD. Amazing! And I have one month time to finish my project.
Yes, I think that commercial users should help more to support development! (3, 2, 1 hate me for that.)
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Nobody believes product development is without costs. I would hope your development schedule is planned in a way that is supported by your existing and likely revenue streams.
An assortment of your customers are simply trying to point out that, for them, your new revenue model (based on whatever metrics you used in its formulation) exceeds their perceived value of the product.
It’s your product so it’s obviously your decision. But I don’t see the thread where people are raving about the new pricing model - I’ll go looking for it and would be happy to hear from those who find it reasonable. And before I voted on your decision with my wallet after 16 years of supporting Boinx, I felt compelled to share my personal point of view about your plan.
Best of luck with your plan! But I, and apparently others, am moving on to alternatives because of the pricing of the new model.
2 Likes
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
My apologies for the sloppy response. Pricing is a difficult topic. FotoMagico is a very specialised application and there is no competitor with regards to image quality, ease of use and convenience. There are also not millions of potential users, and, as you point out, people are now expecting to not spend a lot on software so they can spend the money on the latest iPhone or Mac or camera gear instead. We’ve just spent five years hard work to develop FotoMagico 6 and now we would like to make a living with it. If you compare FotoMagico to iMovie or Keynote, you need to realise that those aren’t “free”, their cost is just included with the hardware. If we would get 10c for each iPad and Mac Apple sells, FotoMagico would also be free.
An assortment of your customers are simply trying to point out that, for them, your new revenue model (based on whatever metrics you used in its formulation) exceeds their perceived value of the product.
Of course, not everyone will agree on how much FotoMagico is worth. We are working hard to make it the best slideshow app out there.
I don’t see the thread where people are raving about the new pricing model
Somehow those people do not feel as passionate about it as the people who do not like subscriptions. But there are a lot more of them, actually subscribing. And a lot of people in this forum and elsewhere are singing the praise of FotoMagico as the best slideshow app.
But I, and apparently others, am moving on to alternatives because of the pricing of the new model.
From the bottom of my heart I wish that you find the solution that makes you happy. Because that is what we want for our customers.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, @wnysz766sb
There has got to be a lot of functionality over and above what can be provided by other apps
That is what is the goal of FotoMagico.
£3 per month (or even something like £30 per year)
For £30 you can use it for about 4 months out of the year to make slideshows and the rest of the year to at least present them on your Mac or iPad using the Player mode.
Call me dense, call me ignorant, just call me stupid. I’ll put my degree from UCLA in math aside for just a moment while I try to suss this out. If I’m reading the above correctly, several people are saying that professional (or amateur) photographers DON’T make slideshows regularly. If that IS the case, then doesn’t $7.99 (call it $8) a month (and ONLY for the months one uses it), seem extremely inexpensive (overall) compared to an outright purchase of FM for let’s just say $96. There are a number of factors there, of course. How long does it take for a user to construct a slide show? A month? Two? Let’s say two months – that’s $16. So assuming someone DOES take two months to create a show, and they create one after another for a year (every two months), that’s about 6 slideshows. Again, assuming $8 a month for 12 months, that’s $96 for a year. So IF a photographer IS NOT using the app for a full year (say he only creates TWO slide shows at 2 months per show, and that’s 4 months) – he would have expended 4 x $8 = $32 rather than spending the $96 and throwing away the $96 - $32 = $64 when the app just sat idle and wasn’t used.
Now of course, the ideal option is to just purchase the app outright (no monthly, no yearly), and so $96 would get you the app for as long as it continues WITHOUT a major upgrade, which has been the history of most applications. But if you use the application only “rarely” in your profession (or personal use), the $8 per (used) month seems extremely reasonable. Basically, if you use it, you pay for it. If you don’t use it, you don’t pay for it.
No matter how you look at it, some people will find the new pricing method acceptable, and some people will not.
I’m now going to pick my degree in math back up off the floor and continue doing what I was doing. And no, it was not working on a slideshow 
Hello Stantastic,
I can appreciate a math degree from UCLA. Absolutely! But perhaps you didn’t read this thread from the very beginning. My point is, no matter how often or seldom one uses it, FotoMagico 6 is 10 times more expensive than FotoMagico 5. No one yet has explained the reasonableness of this (extreme) price hike.
Bryce
1 Like
But it’s only 10 times more expensive than FM 5 IF – and only IF – it’s used (or just “owned”) for 72 months, based on your original argument and your original method of calculation. So, what, you’re only wanting to pay $0.90 a month for it now, based on your calculations of cost versus time owned? Numbers – and CHARTS, particularly – can be manipulated to get multiple results, depending on your goal. Yes 1 + 1 = 2 in simple terms. But when it comes to figuring out a cost vs. usage time ratio, there are other factors to consider. Let me say this – IF I were to want to use FotoMagico to make a slideshow just ONCE in my life, in the scheme of things $8 seems totally reasonable. If I used it every day for 72 months straight, NO, I would not like to pay $8 a month for it.
It’s not the fact that it is a subscription, worse is the height of the price. For 10$ a month I can get an adobe photography plan with Photoshop and Lightroom including a slideshow function. Yes, the Lightroom slideshow can’t compete with FM, but is FM worth eight tenth of a functionality of photoshop plus Lightroom including a raw converter?
No, I will NOT subscribe, unsubscribe, subscribe, unsubscribe, … every time I want to create a slideshow or even want to make e slight improvement after a presentation. If I need a tool I want to be able to use it. I won’t buy a hammer which destroyes itself after using it a month.
I pay for the adobe photography plan annually although I don’t use it every month, it’s worth the fee.
1 Like
Good points, Stantastic. Thank you.
Yes, my calculation is based on the lifespan of version 5. For 72 months I used the latest version of FM for the price of $64.99.
I realise now that I could have presented a much more accurate calculation of the pricing, by addressing the total price I’ve paid since I first purchased FM (then at version 3), on April 15th, 2011.
$119.20 - version 3
$64.99 - version 4 upgrade (estimate based on version 5, as I couldn’t find my receipt)
$64.99 - version 5 upgrade
I’ve paid a total of $249.18 for the past 128 months. This equates to $23.36/year or $1.95/month.
In spite of slow upgrades (average every 3.5 years) and a very limited feature set, the relatively low price (for its entire existence), has made FM a popular, minor, speciality tool among photographers.
Given this, the price increase from $1.95 to $10 per month (a 5 times increase, not 10 as I originally wrote) has tarnished the ownership of this handy tool, and left many of us photographers wondering why Boinx would do such a radical thing to us users.
I hope that makes sense.
2 Likes
Didn’t Adobe tarnish the ownership of Photoshop and Lightroom (and other Adobe products) and leave many photographers wondering why Adobe would do such a radical thing to its users as well?
My wife loves PS and she’s paying a monthly fee and doesn’t blink an eye – it’s worth it to her to have it and use it – and she uses it almost every day.
Does it come down to a comparison of apple and oranges, a comparison between how much it “used” to cost amortized over so many years? Or is it just a question of “How much is FotoMagico (or fill in your own favorite application here) worth to me?”
It’s obvious that some people are adamant about NOT willing to pay Boinx’s monthly fee, and some people are happy to pay the price knowing what the cost is, and how much it might add up to be in the future.
I’m sure the guys at Boinx didn’t come to their decision lightly, and they are a business that needs income if the company is to survive.
And I think this subject could be argued ad infinitum by both sides and no definitive resolution will come of it.
1 Like
Hello,
Stantastic makes a very good point about what the actual costs would be for those of us who only use FotoMagico (FM) occasionally. Some, including myself, were reacting to the announcement of a subscription model without maybe looking into the potential opportunities.
At the time I posted my initial comment it was not clear that users would be allowed to subscribe and unsubscribe on a monthly basis. Only a follow-up email from Boinx cleared that up. I haven’t downloaded the trial yet, it would be nice if the program allowed for a simple method of opting in and out. For example, subscribe for a set period of months without automatic renewals.
FM is a wonderful program, I can create some really nice effects using the simple interface. Unlike some others, I haven’t been too disappointed with the slow pace of upgrades, most of my needs are being met. My biggest wish would be the ability to add shapes.
The price still does appear to be a little high based on the competition.
So long as I am able to “purchase” use of the program only when I need to create a slide show, the subscription seems to be reasonable.
1 Like
I guess it comes down to how much you value your time on this earth. $8 is the equivalent of 2 coffees at Starbucks. $8 are less than spending 2 hours at the movies.
For that you get to enjoy hours of creating absolutely amazing slideshows and the delight in the people you show them to. Or, if you are a professional, you save hours compared to using other methods for creating those slideshows.
1 Like
Hello all,
As the initiator of this thread, I’d like to thank everyone for their input. It’s been enlightening, to say the least.
I’ve learned (gotten the impression) that there are two primary camps, among us FM fans – “advanced photographers” (pros and serious non-pros) and “slideshow makers” (i.e. folks who have lots of still images they showcase for families and friends).
In the first camp, those who use FM occasionally, to create supplemental products to their normal offering. In the second, those who create FM shows on a regular basis (with FM being, most likely, their primary photography related software). This is perhaps why there has been disagreement on how reasonable/unreasonable the 5x price hike has been experienced.
As a full-time professional commercial photographer, I use FM for three purposes:
-
Present the results of a photo shoot for a client and stakeholders
-
To equip and encourage these same client and stakeholders to share the photo shoot results with others (i.e. free advertising for me)
-
Create custom portfolios for potential clients/projects, where I need to include both my stills and excerpts of video productions, into a single video.
Here’s an example of a custom portfolio from this month:
https://www.brycebennett.com/-/galleries/custom/fm/-/medias/first
pw: 134723
Though I use FM as the main assembly tool for such portfolios, Adobe Premier is often used to color balance a few stills and/or clips, tweak the audio (which is sometimes sent roundtrip to Adobe Audition), and tweak transition timings. (Ideally, I wish FM was a plugin for Premier or Final Cut!)
FM is a minor, specialty tool among my imagery tool arsenal:
Capture One
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Bridge
Adobe Premier
VueScan
basICColor Display
ABF Rename
ABF Attributes
As a previous art director, graphic designer, and video producer (for 25 years), I have an additional 20 Mac programs I use from time to time, and keep updated.
This is perhaps why I, and other photographers who are in a similar situation, are sensitive to 5x price hikes…
Lastly, for the sake of clarity for all of us who are not (currently) in the USA, what is the new monthly subscription rate for FM6, in USD? (in our exchanges above I’ve seen 8, 9, and 10 dollars).
Again, thank you everyone.
1 Like
Can you also play the slideshow in 2 screen mode, Mac and beamer and use the teleprompter without subscription?
Exactly!
While my degree isn’t in math like others in this thread (like it matters), I was certainly able to calculate the merits of purchasing the product for just the few months each year I have typically used the product. Then I factored in my time and the inconvenience of purchasing and then cancelling my subscription repeatedly and chose to find an alternative.
I would also suggest that if your defense of your pricing model is to advocate that we repeatedly subscribe and then unsubscribe each time we use it, you’re probably over-pricing the product.
And if your primary target market is photographers who are using far more advanced, subscription-based tools regularly, you probably shouldn’t be surprised when you encounter resistance from them for a pricing model that just doesn’t align reasonably with that world.
1 Like
From the Apple App Store: $7.99/month or $79.99 for a year.
Unfortunately, the App Store is showing a yearly subscription that is not actually available.
Hi @pbosch Yes, you can present on a beamer and from version 6.0.3 you will also be able to use the Teleprompter when unlicensed.