Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:14 am Post subject: Subs Increase
In most I have to agree with Rydell. I only make two downloads a year as I am a summertime only biker, (my car is fitted with it's own Toyota Sat/Nav) so now my two downloads are going to cost me £19 instead of £4 a rise of over 300% ! However I understand the reasons, not sure I fully agree. Mick. TomTom Rider.
Isn't this just the trouble with the web: everyone wants everything for nothing. How do honest people make a living if dishonest ones rip them off. Sure some software is ludicrously expensive but you have a choice!
You have my full support for your actions. How far would you get on £19 of fuel? Some cheapskates round here I think.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:40 am Post subject:
pj100uk wrote:
My feeling is that by effectively raising the cost of obtaining the database for new members, you will in fact worsen the piracy problems.
I feel that people are more likely to part with a small amount of money to obtain a legitimate copy, than are likely to pay the £19. I think a proportion of the potential new subscribers will seek pirated versions therefore worsening the problem.
Afraid I tend to agree...
Maybe some parallels with Radiohead's decision to let people download their new album and pay what they think it is worth - some are obviously going to pay a penny, but apparently some are even saying "I hate their music but I'll pay just to show I think it's a good idea".
Then there was the GLC's fare's fair policy, which saw both the biggest rise in people using public transport AND the biggest reduction in people fare-dodging, because it became affordable.
Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 9323 Location: Durham, UK
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:51 am Post subject:
Quote:
Then there was the GLC's fare's fair policy, which saw both the biggest rise in people using public transport AND the biggest reduction in people fare-dodging, because it became affordable.
Which was supported by a rise in Rates of every tax payer in London!!! Remember every time the councils give you something for nothing they have to get the money from elsewhere!!!!
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am Post subject:
PaulB2005 wrote:
Remember every time the councils give you something for nothing they have to get the money from elsewhere!!!!
Of course....
...but it's just the cause and effect I was talking about. Put the prices up and more people buck the system.
If I had any better ideas on where to get the money from, you can be sure I'd have said so by now!
Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 9323 Location: Durham, UK
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Put the prices up and more people buck the system.
Even though it's been repeated over and over i think you are missing the point. Because we can trace who each database originated from we can ban those people. They will forfeit any remaining subs and will have to pay another fee to get the next database. If we catch them rejoining they risk a further ban and loosing another £19.
The idea of this is to stop people UPLOADING the database in the first place at the risk of loosing money. In the past it was only £2, now it's £19 a time.
If people don't upload the database then no-one can download it. Simple as that and as Darren has reported the latest database is yet to be found. Certainly it might be on some closed groups but it not in the widespread general circulation as it was in the past.
Reducing the cost will not necessarily reduce the piracy. Even if it was 1p a lifetime many will still pirate it anyway.
As the moderators and some others are aware I messed up gaining lifetime membership by missing the rule about being subscribed at the time of submission. Sadly I know understand that - a bit late.
If I had known I would have been happy to pay for the subscription and hope for the best. It sounds like there's a lot are part time downloaders here. You do read from time to time people missing out by not being the first to submit a new camera. Paying £2 for a chance to win free lifetime membership isn't much. Just a slightly more expensive lottery ticket. Paying £19 for a lottery ticket would put some off trying to win the lifetime award and therefore not submit their entry.
I understand PGPSW's stance and the part time users (like me) but it's a shame there isn't a way round this problem to suit all users. It's a shame a "bulk buy" payment over a unlimited time period seems to be unworkable.
I find it hard to believe that this debate is going on and on and on and on........
Let's not forget that PGPSW is a commercial company, and therefore is entitled to set whatever price it wants for its products. It is up to the customer to determine whether they want to buy or not on this basis.
As a commercial company PGPSW will also be interested in keeping its existing customers happy, and winning new customers, but always within the constraint of running a profitable business. If it finds that its pricing policy is losing customers / revenue then I am sure it will modify the pricing accordingly. It is market forces and competition that will determine the price, not a loose co-operative of users.
Most companies would never even consider explaining the rationale behind their pricing decisions - they just issue new prices and the customers have to get on with it. I'm surprised that the guys that run PGPSW have got the patience to continue the debate in this thread.
Rather than complain about the camera databaase price change, I think everyone's energy would be better directed at the companies who charge vast amounts of money for map updates every year! I would guess that there are more cameras added each year than new roads, so on that basis £19 seems like a bargain.
Last edited by RavingDave on Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
I entirely agree with Peter. I too download the database only few times a year, and paying the £2 everytime I needed to update the database was a very fare system. Limiting the subscription to a yealy one will not deter the illegal copies as I don't beleive a bit that these copies have originated by only the monthly subscribers, as there are many honest people who subscribe monthly when they need the database, like Pete and myself. I too and many others can download the ilegal copies if we chose to, but this is dishonest, improper and bad for everyone, indirectly.
This change will not stop those who upload the data or deal with pirated copies and if you want my views on this, by abolishing the monthly subscription you will lose many customers as they will opt out for other sites such as the TomTom site or they will be tempted to download the illegal copies every now and them.
Thanks for the aportunity to put my view.
Theo
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15137 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject:
ddm252 wrote:
Limiting the subscription to a yealy one will not deter the illegal copies as I don't beleive a bit that these copies have originated by only the monthly subscribers, as there are many honest people who subscribe monthly when they need the database, like Pete and myself.
the figures speak for themselves! nearly all of the pirated copies were from users who subscribed on the monthly option presumably because the loss of £2 isn't too much to worry about. it was never said that ALL monthly subscribers shared the database though.
ddm252 wrote:
I too and many others can download the ilegal copies if we chose to, but this is dishonest, improper and bad for everyone, indirectly.
if you want to then do it. but be warned that the last few databases we have downloaded or been sent have been marked up as august or september but were in fact an old july database with none of the newest cameras added since 3rd july. if you download illegally then you can't be certain what you are getting.
ddm252 wrote:
This change will not stop those who upload the data or deal with pirated copies and if you want my views on this,
the simple fact that it will now lose them £19 each time they share a database DOES appear to have limited the pirates as so far we have not seen any pirate copies of the real september database.
ddm252 wrote:
by abolishing the monthly subscription you will lose many customers as they will opt out for other sites such as the TomTom site or they will be tempted to download the illegal copies every now and them.
but the tomtom cameras and garmin cameras are a lot more expensive, less comprehensive and less up to date. also none of the competition have a monthly option, just annual.
ddm252 wrote:
Thanks for the aportunity to put my view.
Theo
you're welcome
MaFt
Last edited by MaFt on Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject:
ddm252 wrote:
Limiting the subscription to a yealy one will not deter the illegal copies as I don't beleive a bit that these copies have originated by only the monthly subscribers, as there are many honest people who subscribe monthly when they need the database, like Pete and myself.
Where do you think the pirate copies com from then? I sure as hell don't upload them!
Quote:
This change will not stop those who upload the data or deal with pirated copies and if you want my views on this, by abolishing the monthly subscription you will lose many customers as they will opt out for other sites such as the TomTom site or they will be tempted to download the illegal copies every now and them.
I give in, I'm not even sure why I bother to reply to such comments. Our change HAS ALREADY had an effect on piracy, because thieving little toe rags don't like spending £19.00 and risk losing their sub immediately. If you don't want to pay the £19.00 then that is your choice, it's a fair price. Instead why not as you suggest others will, go and subscribe to TomTom's inferior annual and more expensive alternative?
The suggestion that some will seek pirate copies is a fact of life but I'm not about to sit around and make it easy for thieves. If you think its too expensive then you are free to find a cheaper solution. _________________ Darren Griffin
I have read the many post for and against subscription.
I am fairly new here, and I have subscribed to the database, which I find very comprehensive and good value as it suits my needs.
I think we would all agree a lot of work goes unseen into making the database along with this site work.
But may I make a few suggestions on points raised.
1. Why not have a single database available each quarter, for a set fee of £6.00 or what ever is acceptable. Then those who wish to be casual users are caterered for. And deterent to Pirates remains in force.
2. When submitting camera locations, issue a sequential reference number, and then on this site, have a section showing which new cameras have been added and approximate location (e.g. M1 between J2 & J3) , and the reference number who reported it. Then people would know why they had not obtained a free subscription, or can contest it if they have a lower number.
3. Have a trial database available with just one type of each camera e.g. Gasto 30, Mobile 60, Specs 70 etc, so people can check out the system before subscribing. This trial database does not have to be up todate, or real. It could for instance be ficticious and located over a stretch of road, so it can be seen in action on the Demo mode of the units in question. With instructions on how to set up the route and enable poi's
Just my two pennies worth and ideas may be difficult to put into practice _________________ Mick
Go 1005 in need of resuscitation
GO 950 Dead,
GO 920 Dead
I just don't see this argument, that some people are putting forward that they only download the database a couple of times a year or don't use it very often.
£19 per year is still cheaper than the competition, who also don't allow monthly subscriptions, they are all yearly, so whats the argument. there isn't one.
either pay up or go without, these guy do a lot of work keeping the database up to date and accurate, why should they work their butts off for ungrateful people to post illegal copies elsewhere.
and i hope PGPSW throw the book at whoever is distributing copies.
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject:
Mick_1959 wrote:
1. Why not have a single database available each quarter, for a set fee of £6.00 or what ever is acceptable. Then those who wish to be casual users are caterered for. And deterent to Pirates remains in force.
Look at the flack we have received for simply removing an option, I can only imagine what would be the outcome if we suggested a single download for £6.00, any takers out there?
Quote:
2. When submitting camera locations, issue a sequential reference number, and then on this site, have a section showing which new cameras have been added and approximate location (e.g. M1 between J2 & J3) , and the reference number who reported it. Then people would know why they had not obtained a free subscription, or can contest it if they have a lower number.
If you're first you get it, if you're not you don't. It's simple and straightforward.
Quote:
3. Have a trial database available with just one type of each camera e.g. Gasto 30, Mobile 60, Specs 70 etc, so people can check out the system before subscribing. This trial database does not have to be up todate,
This is an idea that we are considering to allow new users to sample the functionality and install process etc. if we deploy it, it will not be current and will also not be concise. _________________ Darren Griffin
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
