Home Forums Discussions General Discussion I'm happy it is not a subscription service!

Correct me if I am wrong....

"$995 for the first provider plus $200 each additional provider.
That's it. One charge. One time. Covers the license for your whole practice."

Per website page: http://www.amazingcharts.com/software_pricing.htm

Other Services
Amazing Charts Update & Guardian Angel™ Support
For $500/year (plus $100 each additional provider), you will receive our terrific Guardian Angel support as well as all our program upgrades with all our latest features and enhancements. This includes our full FDA updated medication database (usually released quarterly), as well as the updated ICD-9 and CPT code databases.

Per website page: http://www.amazingcharts.com/software_pricing.htm

BINGO!!! There you have it my friend. With one hand it is given and with the other hand it is taken away. "Now you see it, now you don't..." Did you ever hear the live Sex Pistols album (I know I can hear you all and see all your eyes rolling back in your head, wonder just what planet this Bronxite must be from. The planet Bronx of course, CBGB's man!!!)? At the very end of the concert, people paid some serious cash for their tickets, but the band only had one real good??? set of material to play, and so the show was probably not even an hour long. So Jonny Rotten says at the very end as they are walking off; "and I bet you all feel like you've been had."

This is exactly the confusing and concerning type of double speak that we have been talking about here for at least a year now. On the website where the program is marketed, you have hit the nail right on the head in your quotes. But none the less buried deep within the EULA is this contradictary language about needing to re-up every year with all the possible consequences listed with in it.

Very concerning and very confusing. I seriously wonder just how someone like NYS AG Cuomo would view these two very different parts seeing that they are sort of talking about one and the same product and service.

I must say Roy, personally I love your simple clarity. Thanks for being you.... Gotta run. Need to get out of here soon. Lots of games tomorrow.

Good Night and Good Luck,
Paul

I think you are being too harsh.

It is only a one time fee for the program and you can continue to use that program ad infinitum with no additional charges. If this were a subscription service you would have to pay a recurring fee or the program would stop working.

You are confusing subscription charges with upgrade charges. If you want the program to be updated you have to pay for updates. But if you do not want to pay for an update, you can continue to use your original program as long as you desire, adding any CPT and med updates as you desire manually.

Charging for upgrades and updates is different than a subscription to keep your original program active.

Greg

Greg,
Have you had an opportunity to read the EULA?
Regards.

And BINGO was his name-o....

Folks,

At the risk of muddying the water even further, I've talked to Jon about this in the past, and unfortunately the lawyers have got to HIM about this. He's worried that someone using an old program or old database, and prescribing from outdated data could leave HIM open to liability. This is part of the reason he's moving to a subscription model.

I suspect that the "$500, one time, that's it" text will be going bye-bye in the future.

Maybe not, but that's my impression.

That being said, I also don't see Jon pulling the plug on someone who has had their subscription expire unless he thinks there is a legal threat, or unless for some reason there becomes a legal liability problem due to an unknown flaw in an old version. (a possible example would be finding out an old version altered or ate chart data, or some such) in which case the ability to add new records to those systems would be disabled.

If the practice had the subscription, they'd have the updates.

I've had some pretty long talks with Jon on this, and he's trying to balance a lot of different concerns here. I don't think its about the money - I think it's about having to support multiple versions in the field, and liability.

Just my $0.02

V.

Vinny,
One I understand Jon's wanting to protect himself in weird events to some extent. Hey that's my job as the paranoid practice manager watching out for my wife, right? And I never really thought it was about money, some other things perhaps, but not this. And as many of us have said before, if anybody does deserve a good honest buck or two in the crumby business of medicine, Jon and AC certainly do. This is a great product at a wonderful price. I do not begrudge him his $500 per year. As you know I have even suggested giving AC a reasonable amount more in exchange for a better defined, greater coverage service plan. Good help costs money and again just like us, Jon's gotta pay the rent and have the means to retain good folks

But all that being said, I think I can speak for at least Roy if not a few others that this one clause has us so concerned, is that it really is about control and having the ability to throw people out just because they speak up or are fairly annoying (Myself included for sure). Those of us who are speaking out just want to know that if Jon and AC exercise so extreme means of saying NO that we still get to have and hold the copies and licenses that we have already paid for; flying without a net as it maybe.

Better yet, and again I think I speak for the group here (feel free to say otherwise or support me here gang), is that just because a user or a practice full of users is annoying or otherwise unwelcome, that is poor grounds for termination and the loss of access to our data and charts. We want something that affirms our rights to stay on board, pay our annual fees, have a right to an expectation of a certain quality of tech support, and that we just can't be thrown away or under a bus, simply because we are not welcome because of the annoyances and troubles of human relations.

This is what dealing with the great general public is like. I gather you remember the flaming post the refered to me in terms like I was a bi-polar patient, that was non-compliant with my treatment, demanding controlled substances and all the other hog-wash. Now that post was pretty embarressing and got removed fairly soon, but it is burned in mine and other memories for all time. It was our own AC version of Al and the EMRupdate folks. But just because Al likes to push people's buttons when he knows he is being blown off and mistreated didn't make Al the bad guy and in the end he was "terminated" just like Village Medical pretty much was.

In light of these past transgressions, we users want something that affirms our rights to the program we purchased, regardless of how tense things may get sometimes. MS, Intuit, TrendMicro, Gateway and Dell, don't terminate me just because I have a few nasty exchanges with them over support issues and neither should any other software vendor, especially one as important and an EMR charting and/or billing program. We as the providers and the managers of those providers have a legal and ethical obligation to always be able to protect and provide our patients' medical records, anyone else's interests be dammed. Sorry but that is the honest truth and I know you understand that concept. I bought a copy of Excel, QuickBooks or whatever, and created important data that only really works for the average user without super expense and hastle in those programs. We need to have our rights to continued use and access affirmed, not taken away or held over our heads like the Server based programs do.

Anyway, it is very late and we are almost ready to hit the road for our vaction and we still have a thousand things to do. Have a great night...
Paul

Vinny,

The liability Amazingchart.com needs to worry about is false advertisement.

"$995 for the first provider plus $200 each additional provider.
That's it. One charge. One time. Covers the license for your whole practice."
Per website page: http://www.amazingcharts.com/software_pricing.htm


The lack of clarity on this issue (subscription vs. purchase of program), and a EULA that doesn't live up to the advertising slogan is my issue. I bought this software over six years ago with the intention that this program wasn't a ASP model. In fact, if it is subscription based and AC intends to damage/alter functioning my server, that is an entire legal issue in itself.

Perhaps the switch to subscription base is a revenue generating strategy. There really hasn't been an recent update that I have found worthwhile spending my time downloading (at a risk of incorporating a bug that would shut down the software).

We have Paul to thank for being a watchdog on this issue. Who would have thought the EULA would be used in this manner? I, for one, paid the 2007 update (by automatic credit card) on the basis of AC advertisement that I had purchased the program.

I just hope this practice does not spread to used car dealerships. I paid for my car in a cash payment six years ago. I would be angry if they sent me a revised payment slip stating that it is really a lease (six years after the purchase)!

Post#299

Roy,
Damm you are good. That is the perfect analogy. Way to go my friend. Exactly, did we purchase it as stated on the website or is this now being changed on us, mid-term and post-facto, into a lease. What was sold to you as purchase is then post facto turned into a lease. Pay this to purchase and then these annual fess for support and updates. How can it now be turned into a lease if we already bought it years earlier??? Bingo Roy, damm you're good.

At the very least, perhaps us older users who bought in under original terms would be protected by various consumer laws, while those who buy in now might be subject to the new terms and conditions but only if the website jives with the EULA. It really is talking out both sides of one's mouth.

I'm most concerned that AC is holding to this line even as they should be able to see that it speaks to a lack of intergrity and honesty, which has always been a hallmark of the AC culture and business plan. Which AC do we the consumer now have in terms of support and corporate culture??? I would have hoped that Jon would want to put his best foot forward and continue to shine and build on AC's positive image of taking great care of folks and never screwing them like all the other awful big dogs in this market. This just feels wrong doesn't it??? I still want to get back to Waterbury VT (my Ben and Jerry's analogy), does AC?

Anyway, I'm off to finish all my tasks and errands so we can have a great family week with Mickey and the gang. Our best to one and all...
Paul and Nancy

Hey everyone:

I pretty much agree with Roy and Paul. Hell, how could you not. Basically, one lives under the rules of what the rules were when the agreed to them. I can't recall, but I believe I paid $250 for mine. Someone purchasing today would pay $995. That doesn't mean I owe $745. Part of this is semantics. A subscription model would indicate one had to pay yearly or whatever time period to continue to use the product. A yearly fee for support and updates is just that. Plenty, if not all of the large software companies such as Microsoft or even Cortex, will come out with a statement saying they will no longer support Version X. So, you have a choice. Keep Version X with no support or upgrade to Version Y and have support. But, AC cannot force someone to purchase another version if the original agreement stated otherwise. Well, they could, but I doubt any lawyer could win that one. Now, Jon could implement a subscription service from this day forward and those who want to upgrade could.

Now, I do not believe this liability lawyer thing for a minute. I may be off on some of this, but the product was purchased "as is."

Here is the thing, and I have said this at least a hundred times. Amazing Charts is a great product well worth the $995, but:

If no one has been sued over the current medication database, then they are never going to be sued. All of the databases, but especially the medication databases, are horrible! It is unusable. It is a lawsuit waiting to happen. And, not one new FDA database has made it any better.

Not to brag here, but I shouldn't have to spend over two months each night designing a completely new database from scratch. And, although 74 users have downloaded it, I do not lose a minute's sleep over the chance I may have written Concerta 560 mg instead of 56 mg. It's "as is." Granted, I didn't write that so maybe I should go to the sample closet and grab some Rozerem. But, life's too short. And, I am working on version 2. It's open source, so there is no charge.

To use Roy's analogy, one shouldn't have to pay to upgrade the medication database, it should be recognized as one that is totally inaccurate and be recalled for free.

OK, one last rant before I go off for my coronary artery stent.
I could not agree more with Paul and Roy and Bert. If I were Jon and I were really concerned about the legalities surrounding the use or misuse of my product, I would have addressed the data base issues long ago. And, let's face it... I believe the threat of legal action for Jon would be many, many times higher from those of use currently using the program, under the conditions which it was purchased, should we suddenly be threatened with the self-destruction of the program and the inability to access the data we have entered into it (than it would be from someone who bought the program, as is, and had an adverse outcome because of an inadvertant software glitch). I for one would be on the phone to my lawyer immediately. There are currently at least 1040 members who have all apparently purchased the program under the current EULA conditions and pricing policy. I would think making them angry would not be a wise position for Jon to take. As I have stated before...I love AC and I would not deny Jon's right to make a profit off this wonderful program but I believe we have demonstrated that, for the most part, we are a somewhat unique subset of physicians who have our hands firmly grasped around the ins and outs of our practices. Many of us have left groups for solo practices because we stand firm in certain convictions. In other words "Don't Mess With Us!!"

OK, enough. Time to hit the cath lab.

Leslie

Leslie,

We love your rants. And, they are generally dead on. I have many times advocated for Jon to come and and give "The state of creation address" of AC and its future. (Take off of The State of the Nation address). And, not during a thread when emotions are running high.

Something like in short:

For all those who purchased the product...blah, blah AC will honor your current plan and will only ask you to pay xx dollars per year for support and upgrades. Starting March xx xxxx, AC will be moving to a subscription model. Any new users will be required to purchase the subscription model and any user prior to March xx xxxx can decide to stay as a non vs subscription concept, etc. etc.

The reasons AC is moving in this direction is the following...

Anyway:

Leslie are you really have a stent put in. Good luck. We will be thinking about you today and praying for a speedy recovery.

Leslie,
Great rant there, very accurate and on target. I think we are all hitting the same issue here. It is a matter of trust in the vendor, creator of the product and our ability to always have originally created and intended access to our OWN data and charts. This is our data, our charts that were created in, with the use of the tool, Amazing Charts.

And let's not ever forget that they are really our patients' as well. This is their medical information, their PHI, that we have created for both ourselves and for them. Is this not why so many of us are up in arms over all that other CCHITT, CCHITT??? To protect both ours and our patient's rights of privacy? What is the real intent of a chart or medical record? To remind a provider as to what has happened or was discovered in the patient's past so as to assist them in the continued treatment of that patient into the future. And almost any other reasons that many bring forward today are false reasons on shaky grounds. They were never intended to be used to track data for medical or business purposes, to allow the gov't or insurance carriers to spy on providers and patients, citizens.

This is about the protection of the provider and the patient to always have proper access to this important data for good continued treatment, all other issues take a back seat to this first and most important one.

I can still remember the local GP, FP I used to see as a kid who kept all of his notes and records on large sized index cards in a few rows same sized draws. He and his wife could run an entire medical practice by themselves and they always knew each and every one of their patients by name. Where we are going and what we have become is an abomination to the proper practice of primary care. Anyway, AC is our index cards that AC and Jon supplied the cards and pens for use to create our charts in, nothing more, nothing less. A great tool at a great price, but once created in the program all things then are the property of the provider and their patient. Keep your hands off my index cards....

We're given an opportunity to update the EULA by Jon. I think it is critical for this board to contribute your thoughts on this issue. As far as I am concerned, this is not a subscription program and I am not going to update the program in order to turn it into a subscription program.

The community EULA, ripe for editing: http://www.amazingcharts.com/wiki/index.php?title=Suggested_EULA_edits

Roy:

We could actually just copy and paste links to our various past discussions directly into the EULA, in the appropriate sections (with a brief description, if desired), so that Jon (or whomever) can just follow the links back to these threads as he is reviewing our suggestions.

This would add a lot more depth and diversity of opinion, as there have been many discussions on this topic.

A motivated individual could search for relevant past posts/threads in the archive, collect the links, and paste a block of links into the EULA, labeled "Relevant Past Discussions". That would also transform that page into a jumping-off point for anyone new to this topic. And/or...

Or it could be a group effort. Anybody who can remember and find relevant past threads could actually post them in this thread (or another thread designated for the purpose, maybe the original Wiki thread would be better), to facilitate collection and posting to the EULA.

That might be a more painless way for everybody to add their contributions. There are a lot of good thoughts here, but not everybody is willing to overcome the Wiki learning curve to add their thoughts to the EULA (however flat the learning curve might be).

Anyone want to give it a try?

I would hope that Jon and those in his employ at AC are actually reading some of these threads. Could one of you Wiki happy folks get some of this stuff over there? Could you at least post a note saying please see this thread and that thread. But copying and getting it over to the wiki might be best so it doesn't all get lost one day.

Same idea. I would really like to find a way to save and to retrieve as many of the AC website pages too. They are but in cyberspace otherwise. Since folks like Roy and myself are making reference to them in these discussions, saving them, archiving them for future use and discussion becomes key. I'm just not that good with these things. Someone care to do a little extra lifting for the group??? Some of us post and create, others could archive and maintain the record... Anybody care to act as Sec/Treasurer???

AARRGGHH!!

Sorry. I know if you don't have anythng good to say.....

Bert,
Are you OK? What's the Charlie Brown AARRGGHH for? What has you so tied up? I'm about to back and pack and I'm pretty crazy tomorrow and all, but what's up???

Oh, I just have differing points of view, that's all. Probably shouldn't rain on the parade.

I guess I should just keep it to myself, then, rather than speaking out. But, that is so tough for me!

Come on, Bert. That is what is so great about this user forum. We can listen to what the real users have to say. Your opinion, although it may differ, is very important to me and to others I am sure. Wouldn't the very best EMR one could develop be the one that was composed of ideas from the users?
Spill your refried beans.

Leslie

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.

Bert,

I'm in agreement with what you say. I find nothing you mention as controversial.

I have purchased a license for Amazingcharts several years ago. In fact, I believe my practice is one of the first 10 that paid for this program, if I am not mistaken.

Yes, Jon does have the right to make this into a subscription program! If he converts it into a subscription program, it should be made clear that this is a subscription program (rather than hide that fact in the EULA). There should be a grandfather clause (or some consideration for exchanging a permanent license to convert to subscription software).

The website advertising Amazingcharts indicates that this is not a subscription service. All of the reviews on AC on other magazines indicate that Amazingcharts is NOT a subscription program.

But the EULA, the legal backbone to the software, is confusing. If you read the current EULA, it does not sound like anything in the main Amazingcharts.com website. There is a disconnect. The EULA indicates that one can have his license pulled for a variety of vague reasons.

So, I submit to you... if I pay for an update, is that a tacit agreement of submitting to the subscription model... or not? And, as purchaser of a program (or a leasee of this program) shouldn't I be let known if I am downloading a doomsday feature in the program?

I don't think that anyone here is asking for the moon. We want reassurance that we will be treated fairly and there consistency. I really agree with all that you say, Bert!

Thanks Roy, and I agree with you as well. Uh oh, the mutual... thing.

I agree that the EULA is disconcerting and doesn't quite go along with other things we are hearing. I hear what you are saying about the website and the others rumblings. BUT, you have to admit, it has not been made a subscription service yet.

It is my time to put up my $500 dues. Yes, it can be whatever it is, but I look at it more like my contribution to the growth of AC, although I am not naieve enough to think it is not a profit maker.

I do think if one pays for another year of updates and upgrades, support, etc., he or she will be covered for whatever the subscription service may be. Maybe there will a date for this.

As I have stated many times, a State of AC would be helpful.

Your friend,

Hi guys,

I am a new user to AC. I've played with the program a lot, and am best friends with a well established user of AC. I have reviewed a number of the threads regarding this EULA issue. I can understand the sense of "ownership" that many AC users have, since a large number of them have used for a long time.

It would appear that you all actually do own your copies of AC. Even if Dr. Bertman moves to a subscription policy, he cannot delete your existing copy from your computers. However, he can choose to force users to subscribe for updates, and simply deny updates to those who don't subscribe. In fact, many of you already have programs like this: most anti-virus software uses this arrangement, along with Quicken, Microsoft and hosts of other vendors.

He can choose to do whatever he wants, since he owns the company. He can choose to sell the company to Microsoft or Sage or Logician or whomever will buy. He could just dissolve the company.

I think for a nominal fee of $500, it's not too much to ask for such a wonderful product. I think most of us in medicine can afford this fee. Also, consider the fact that tech support, product development, and other services offered by AC are not free. These services involve overhead/expenditures on the part of Dr. Bertman. Any of us who own our practices (me for example), can understand that everything costs money. When compared to horrible EMR's (like Logician) which costs tens of thousands of dollars and several thousands to maintain a subscription, I think AC is an incredible bargain.

No offense to Roy or Bert for my opinions above. I just hope some of the users who are posting comments could try to keep things in perspective. If Dr. Bertman goes around pulling licenses and denying users the right to purchase/subscribe to his program, then he will develop a very poor reputation. It seems like he has worked hard to maintain a very good reputation for this product, and I can't imagine he'll actively try to destroy it.

Respectfully,
Adam Lauer, DO

Full disclosure:

Dr. Lauer used Logician for three years as a resident. From what I understand, he didn't care for it.

Yes Bert,
Full disclosure, I was enslaved to Logician by my FP residency. I HATED IT. It was combersome, clumsy, stupid, and redundant. No office note is EVER easy to read in Logician.

Compared to Logician, AC is simple and easy to use. Compared to anything, AC is simple and easy. That's why I'm willing to pay $500 per year. Heck, I'd even pay $1,000 per year. It's a great product. My staff have learned about 75% of it in just a couple of hours, very intuitive.
Adam

Bert,
I don't think you said anything the rest of us have not said. I personally do not think your opinion collides with mine. My main contention about this whole EULA thing is the threat of AC self-destructing before my eyes, taking with it all of my laboriously entered patient information, just because I failed to pay a yearly update fee. There are many, many software programs which I have purchased and still currrently run but have not felt inclined to update because the updates are of no added benefit to me (Quicken is a good example here). I have no problem with expecting to pay a yearly update fee if I in fact believe the updates are just that...updates, improvements in the program I originally purchased. I also have no problem either paying a yearly support fee or a "pay-as-I-go" support fee. I do have a serious problem however with the notion my current program can be inactivated per a built-in timed-out feature or at the whim of the seller.
So there. I really do not think we disagree. I even agree with you that the EULA being posted as a WIKI is kind of silly, especially when Jon has this terrific forum where the ideas of the current users can be sought.
And, in the end, this whole discussion may be for naught should the CCHITT proposal succeed. We may then all be out of business.

Leslie

Download the latest version. Tuck it away somewhere on one of AC's famous thumb drives. Back up the databases, and you will be all good even if you have to disconnect from the Internet on those machines that run AC. There are other ways using configurable firewalls, but I won't get into that now.

Again, I doubt Jon will go so far as to make the program inoperable, because 1) it would be awful for business and 2) it would definitely leave a ton of patients out in the cold.

Having said all this, and also not liking the Wiki, I very much appreciate all of Roy's work on the Wiki, and ultimately, that may be the very EULA that Jon adopts.

This is such a great message board, and I am impressed that all of us contribute which very benign ideas and sometimes less than benign conversations, but compared with our friends over at EMRUpdate, we are a super mix of friends and colleagues.

Just one small edit to Bert's comment... to which I agree.

I would strongly encourage you to keep a copy of a much older version of the program (perhaps 3.6.12) as the current version may already contain the code that inactivates your computer from processing the program. And an older copy is the copy that is not under the term of the new EULA, too.

I am giving this advice based on no particular inside information. Bert, Vinny or others that understand programming better may have a better insight on which program might contain the code to deactivate Amazingcharts.

The problem with keeping the old copy is that the database requires tuning (probably means addition or deletion of old fields on Access though there is really no way of knowing what the tuner actually does). So if you are running a newer copy of Amazingcharts, your database may not work retroactively on a previous version. Thus, it would be helpful to know of anyone who has tried to run a Version 2 on a Version 3 database. If it works, great. But for myself, I'm happy running the old version of Amazingcharts in which I know I have legal ownership of the license, and hopefully avoid this potential legal issues associated with the program shutting itself down.

Of course, the way to eliminate all of this angst and discussion and guesswork is to have some sort of information from the Creator as to what is true and what isn't true. Otherwise, we wind up "Waiting for Godot." --pretty much an existentialist exercise, eh?

Good points. I guess one could experiment with today's database on a Version 2 program. I am not sure that there is the equivalent of Microsoft's Genuine Certificate of Authenticicty that sneaks in with the updates, but it would be cool to have an FTP site with all of the versions on it. Just a thought.

Why won't Jon, AC simply help us feel more secure in our ownership of the program. Yes we all feel just hunky dory about giving Jon his $500 bucks a year for his hardwork and intellectual property, that is not the issue. But can he turn off my program just because I'm a pain in the butt or otherwise just doesn't like me? Can he stop me from buying my renewal for similar simple and petty grounds and therefore make us "illegal" users thru no fault of our own? "here take my money please..."

It is our time to re-up to and my check will soon be in the mail. I feel for the most part in terms of software development Jon and AC have earned each and every dollar of it. I may feel less secure in the quality of support but at such rates AC is very small vendor. Again I personally would be willing to consider paying a reasonable sum more in exchange for a promise of better well defined support... Not being Bert or Vinny or being able to hold them hostage to do so for us...

Just simply make all parts jive, tell us the truth up front, help us feel secure in our continued ownership and use of the program and the data and encounters we have entered in it and let's all get past this already. It is silly how long this has been allowed to fester like this. We just want to get back to Waterbury VT already, don't all of you???

Paul and Nancy

Ahem, Bert,

You're talking above my lowly head.... What's a FTP?

FTP or file transfer protocol is basically a method of transferring files from one computer to another over the Internet.

You have to love cuteFTP, 'cause of its name. And, the bottom link has a great multitasking duck.

http://www.cuteftp.com/products/ftp_clients.aspx

http://www.imagescape.com/helpweb/ftp/ftptop.html

Roy,
Was just starting to wonder where you are and if all is OK. Figured I might get your attention if I posted on your thread. Drop me a line, OK?
Paul

I'm going to speak out as a minority voice on this one, so forgive me friends if I politely disagree.

I don't see the difference in paying $500/yr for updates/customer support, or in paying a similar fee for subscription.

I currently lease ALL of my office software systems (Small Business Server, Vista, Microsoft Office Enterprise Edition, and many many more). I lease these programs on an annual basis from MicroSoft. I have no problem with their lease agreement.

MS cannot hack into my computers and uninstall ANYTHING. However, then can allow my programs to lock up if I don't maintain the subscription.

whatever becomes of AC, I trust the administrators WANT our business and will do nothing to alienate their entire 1,800 users. If they do... they go under.

Remember, business is business. Just like out privately run offices, we wouldn't jack up the rates on our patients from $100/visit to $1,000,000/visit, otherwise we lose all clients. then we go out of business.

Look, I own a copy of Aldus PageMaker 3.0.

It's mine, I bought it. There was no subscription.

It was state-of-the-art for desktop publishing back in 1990. It doesn't work anymore! Computers and operating systems get upgraded. Documents created with it are no longer compatible with other software. In effect, I have "lost" my data, by not keeping my program current.

My point is that ownership of the program does not guarantee your ability to access your data. Nobody has to maliciously block you out of your program for it to become completely useless.

The important thing is to know that our program is going to remain vital and functional for the life of our practice, at a reasonable price.

Very good points. However, we would only need one visit per year if we charged $1,000,000 per visit.

I purchased this program under the slogan "That's it. One charge. One time. Covers the license for your whole practice."

There is a switch and bait if it moves into a subscription service.

It's not an issue of money. It's an issue of ethics. For all we know, it's not clear if this is a subscription program (as the EULA hints) or this is a program which we have in which we have an option of continuing to purchase updates to keep the program relevant (as it is publically advertised nationally).

I guess there are some people who don't see a difference! I don't know how one can successfully run a business with an attitude of "I don't know if I purchased it or leased it."

This issue apparently is not going to get resolved on this user board. Issues about bugs are being introduced on the userboard, but there appears to be no progress in fixes over the years.

I believe the issues I have brought to this userboard are valid. I am discouraged by those who think that they are trivial. I feel I am just spinning my wheels on the board. I enjoy the comaraderie, but feel I have little to contribute.

Just venting my frustration in having a simple issue addressed. I may do better venting elsewhere.

Roy,

At the risk of hurting our friendship and starting a flame war, I feel I must reply. I do not think a company who sells a product as an outright purchase is obligated to continue to sell it that way. We always seem to use Microsoft Word or something similar as the analogy. So, Microsoft sells us Microsoft Word and the EULA allows you to keep it forever and received updates and support. But, with the next version, they are certainly not obligated to continue to sell it in that fashion. They may as they have a right to do, change it to a subscription model. Jon could, if he wished, just stop selling or making AmazingCharts. He would be obligated only to honor the support contract for the year.

Jon does not have to indicate by EULA or otherwise as to whether Version 4.0 will be subscription. He can make that clear when it is put out. This is the same as when the prices increasd which is also legal and ethical.

At this point, any version 3 is purchased. And, there are some people who don't see a difference. And, that is fine. People disagree all the time.

I agree that some of the bugs and ideas have not been changed. But, most of these are not bugs. They are ideas we have wanted to change. I am just as frustrated that my ideas, which I think are excellent but others may not, do not get implemented. But, let's take Word again or Outlook. Microsoft allows each user to email them with ideas. They will even write back saying they received it. But, Microsoft or Adobe or whatever will NEVER implement changes until the next major release. They will produce patches to fix bugs and security issues, but you will not see any features added or changed. I think we on the boards forget this and also think that some of these changes can be made with one line of code. One of the advantages of working with a programmer the past few years is finding out which things I ask for can be implemented easily and which cannot.

You may feel that users are taking your views as trivial, and I am sorry you are discouraged by this. Just because some or many users do not agree with your views just as they may not agree with someone else's views, does not mean they are trivializing yours. You are not spinning your wheels on the boards. Some of your statements and ideas have been met with overwhelming agreement and some have not. As I have stated many times, the vast majority of statements are met with complete silence from the vast majority of users. You also should consider that some of those who post the most (read me) do not agree as vehemently with Paul and your view on the EULA.

I don't think you would do better venting elsewhere. I have always appreciated your input on the boards. So have others. I only wish we could go back to the pre-EULA days when we all had fun or talked about how to improve the Rx writer whether it was improved or not.

I also think that just because some of us have fun talking about issues other than AC or joking about PVC, etc., does not mean we don't care about the direction of AC. It is in no way impossible to do both and to suggest otherwise is unfair.

Bert and Roy,
Guys of all the people I want to see remain good friends, you two are certain there. As you all know I certainly agree with Roy in terms of the purchase of our EMR program verses leasing and worse yet, leasing with terms and conditions that say one can be thrown away or turned away with little or no just cause. The support section of the EULA is even worse, support is totally hit or miss, if AC wants to they will and if they don't care to they won't??? That is some upsetting and concerning terms and conditions. And worse yet one must sign off on accepting such messed up terms and conditions just to get their bought and paid for quarterly updates??? Give me a break, that is selfish and rude, plain and simple, no less the fact that it is almost impossible to defend such a position.

I agree that it would be nice to return to the days before all this talk about the EULA, I would love to see nothing more. It is why I have always wanted to have AC get togethers, I love the sense of community. But what are the governing principles of this community??? This community was founded by Jon (thank-you) on the basis of fair play and many of us, myself and Nancy included took such things to heart and tried to act appropriately by those principles. I think Roy is extremely entitled to his feelings of being deceived, bait and swithced, in light of the conflicting concepts coming off two sides of the same basic subject from the company.

And I have one or two very old machines that I still have like Windows '95 or '98 on simply so I can still use the old programs and more importantly access the old data we created on those old machines and programs so long ago now. Just in case. I understand if at some point MS no longer wants to support a version of their program that is like 7 or 8 years out of production, but I still have things I created in that old stuff and nobody should be able to tell me I have to stop using it. There is a real difference.

In the end this really comes down to a matter of trust and it seems that the vendor wants us to trust him more than he is willing to trust us. Not to be a broken record, but I have no issue with giving AC its annual fees, I just want to know that I can always access my patient data via its native program that we were lead to believe we were buying, not leasing over two years ago now. Otherwise both Roy's practice and ours might as well finally break down and simply use the ASP based programs that are both flying out of our local hospitals and be done with all of this already. There really is no difference anymore. We are no more nor no less secure in our continued use of the program or any of the data we created in it.

I could use QuickBooks on-line or some other business program that is web-based but I won't and for the same exact reasons. I want to always be able to have and hold the native program that my vital data is created in. That is our personal comfort level and anything less than that is below mine and Nancy's comfort level. That is what we were all lead to beleive we were purchasing and I have recommended the same to many other offices that have asked my opinion. I feel as Roy does that there needs to be federal legislation on such things in light of the fact that offices such as ours have all these long legged information laws that we must comply with like HIPAA and other similar state based ones.

If not, then we should all go back to paper. Imagine if you would the concept of having Staples or OfficeMax take back your filing cabinets, folders and papers and have them post-facto no less, turn your purchases of such supplies into renewing leases, that the vendor themselves for any reason that fit their fancy could kick you out of no less. Sorry, tough, here we come to take back your files. Or if they had a deviced rigged that could destroy your files via remote control because they didn't want to renew your lease, even if you were willing to re-up. How crazy is that???

That is what is really happening when you take away a healthcare providers access to their own electronic medical records in its native program. Its not a crime right now, but it sure as hell should be. And I say this not just as a practice manager or spouse of a doctor, but as a consumer patient of another doctors office who she too uses another EMR vendor. Damned as hell if Dr David Tully Smith (ChartWare) can suddenly lock me and my chosen healthcare provider out of my own medical records. That is totally BULLCCHITT and that can not be denied.

In the end I think that Roy's perspective and feelings are that the great values and governing priciples that founded this great little company and gave rise to this wonderful product we all use and depend on each and every day, should be self evident in the terms and conditions of the contracts it gives its faithful users to sign. And that the rules of the game, when they were so obviously originally based on such fine principles, should not be changed on us in the the midst of our relationship. It was the original terms and conditions, combined with those great giuding principles that got us to "buy-in" in the first place. And it really does feel kind of "raw" to go radically changing them now. I know they are certainly Mine and Nancy's wishes and desires. We still really want to get return to WaterBury VT (Hey now there's a great place to hold our "Next" AC get together!) too. Thanks for listening....
Paul and Nancy