Jamkazam is moving onto Paid Subscriptions. Donors and volunteers' thoughts?

[karelr]

I don't object in principle to paying for something that I value - and I do value Jamkazam and have previously donated money to help fund development. I just think that the prices are way too high for something that is, to be charitable, a rather poor beta release. Only yesterday I had the client crash twice in the space of an hour - once when I wasn't touching anything, just chatting to someone. 

What I can't understand at all is the pricing model. Why does a larger group have to pay more per person to use the software? It makes no commercial sense! If anything, it should be cheaper per person for larger groups. A group of 10 has to pay $100 a month for the privilege of using Jamkazam, whereas a group of 4 can meet for an hour a week for free. Where's the logic in that?

There are many thousands of people who use and value Jamkazam on a regular basis. Surely it would be better to keep them all in the fold by charging a couple of dollars a month, than to drive most of them - and particularly larger groups - into the hands of the competition. At least until JK works reliably. They could always offer better quality/service for higher prices, but still keep it possible for larger groups to keep using the software without spending a fortune on something that isn't finished yet.

I just hope they read this forum and reconsider. We are already starting to evaluate the various other options out there.


Agreed, though I've had increasing and tremendous success with JK, the audio keeps getting better, and the streams much more reliable in the last couple of months.  It has been a life- and sanity-saver!  My experience has been that either JK sets up easily and wonderfully well, or it takes many many hours to set up properly.  Over the months there have been major crashes, some significant enough to interrupt the stream, severe limits on number of participants (in October I was able to stream a quartet without interruption for the first time; up until then even the trio streams were iffy).  And now having invested all those hours to get it working beautifully, to find out that subscription costs will probably send most of those musicians with whom I've been playing away because:

-they aren't using JK enough to warrant the cost (online gigs are hard to come by)
-those gigs just aren't making much money
-the only good option for streaming seems to be the platinum plan
-the more musicians I want to play with, the more it will cost

I have suggested different pricing:
perhaps a fee per stream, including a rehearsal/tech set up, or in general pricing based on usage
perhaps a discount for bands/groups who play together regularly

I truly appreciate David, Peter and Seth's incredibly hard work and dedication to JK.  It's a brilliant program and when it works well, it's a lifeline!

best,
karel