OK, but I warned you. I could definitely be wrong, but in the long run everything will probably end up the same. It is the rhetoric that has colored the issues.
I have read everyone's post on this matter and appreciate everyone's viewpoint. And, as Leslie says, they all add to the overall quality of AC and its products. I don't mean to offend anyone or have them think I am disagreeing specifically with their view.
We should look at the definitions of each, although a subscription model is open to interpretation.
1. Licensed application which resides on your computer. This is what we purchased when we paid for AC. Anywhere from $250 to $995 plus extra for other providers. This allowed one to download and install one program for each and every computer in the practice.
2. ASP -- An ASP is an acronym for Application Service Provider. This is really a type of subscription model where one pays for a product (generally monthly) which is hosted on a vendor's site and interfaced via a browser. This keeps startup costs down, but leaves your data in cyberspace (unless you download it each night). Logician Internet -> Medscape Encounter is a great example of an ASP model. It rocked. But, it went under as did everyone's data. Remember, an ASP isn't just for EMRs.
3. A subscription model can be done a number of different ways. Basically it is similar to an ASP except the software is usually on your computer. The subscription may allow you to have updates and upgrades during the year you subscribe or it may allow activation of the program itself. Another variation of the same is a program by Microsoft whereby Microsoft MVPs (Most Valuable Professionals) can acquire thousands of dollars worth of software for a low subscription price. If one doesn't subscribe, then they receive no new software and their license to their existing software.
Nowhere does it say that Jon can't move to a subscription model. There are many ways he can do this. He could start a subscriptin model and grandfather those of us who have already purchased AC. The EULA would indicate to me that one can always keep the AC they bought (I know this is a bone of contention), but I do not believe it states that one will always have the right to upgrade in the same fashion as done now.
From what I am understanding, there would be little difference between what already exists and a subscription model other than one may HAVE to pay a subscription each year. But, we already pay a $500 fee each year for updates, upgrades and new databases and support each year. Granted, I am not big on the databases (in fact, I think we should be paid or reimbursed if we have to use them), but the support (be that as it may) and the upgrades are helpful. (especially when we get past the interfaces and back to minor and major improvements -- my opinion only).
So, it seems that other than being forced to purchase a subscription based model (depending on the cost and what the actual crippling effect of non subscribing is -- it may just be no upgrades, etc.), it will end up being for nothing.
My major submission is it would seem Jonathan should be allowed to do what he wants and write a EULA that he wants. Now, that doesn't mean that we need to like it. Which means we don't have to continue to support it. I think his threat to discontinue someone's license based on his feelings about that person should not affect the EULA. I do not think the EULA should in any way say a license can be revoked if one does not decide to pay the support fee. This cannot be done based on the past EULA of which one purchased AC or for the EULA that accompanied an upgrade for that matter. As long as one keeps a copy that has a valid user license, then I don't think it can be taken away. However, if the program does move to subscription in the future, then users will have a choice to subscribe and have that subscription version be tied to the EULA of that subscription and to receive updates/upgrades and support or to not do so and keep their licensed programs.
My contention is that we forget about the EULA and all of its trappings. I guess I should be grateful that Jon has allowed us to change it, but I am not. Frankly, I find it a bit unsettling and unbusiness-like. I think we should continue to voice our opinions about it, but I think it ultimately is up to Jon to either listen and change it or to keep it the way it is which may turn current and future users off.
Totally my opinion.
