PowerArchiver 2012 or PowerArchiver 2013

[spwolf]

PowerArchiver 2012 or PowerArchiver 2013

As we work on next generation PowerArchiver, we face difficult decision we often do - how to name it.

Last time we started beta's in March and completed final in late July, and we called it PA 2011 - mere few months later, it seems as if it old product.

So what do you think we should name next one - PA 2012 OR PA 2013?

thank you!

[spwolf]

Just to remind everyone, this has nothing to do with the product itself or update terms (business users will get same update no matter what it is called), it is pure marketing term and thats how it should be looked at.

thanks!

[Luxor]

Doesn't that depend on the year of release or am I missing the point there? (No I don't understand marketing).

It would seem odd IMO calling it PA2012 if if was to be released in 2013. Likewise if it's released in 2012 it would seem odd to me to call it PA2013.

For that reason I selected 2012 in the hope that we get a release sooner.

[Sir Richard]

Ok,

If it was me, and based on what i know if i were working with or for Conexware as employee or business advisor.

I would suggest that if all of the below services, features and applications can be completed to RC1 standards by October 2012 then we i would do PowerArchiver 2013 for pulic release testing and aim for Final by January.

1. PAF format
2. ZiptoEmail
3 AttachmentCloud
4. Conexware - Wiki Support Site
5. Patche's, Improvements & Bug Fix's with PowerArchiver

If you can deliver all of the above before May then you could do 2012.

Personaly, i would like to see all of these new features, services available at once with the release of a new 2013 Application.

I would like to have the cloud, zte both finished as a joint project. not zte 1st then cloud after.

with the new PAF format i would like to see this in a major update ie 2013 along with enhancments we have discussed in alpha chat.

As always, it depends on resource and how far you are on things like Wiki, PAF and ZTE. Cloud services can be dulled down to a part and then improved on over time if required as its a web service.

[Mili]

Nice input fellas!
I think that this is unrelated to ZTE, as it will be a software separate from PA.

In terms of 2012 or 2013, say we complete all the great features (&more maybe) in May/June and that would, depending on the official release date, give only about 6 months of PA 2012 actually being in 2012. Then what?
With that, I think PA 2013 would give a better advantage marketing wise as it will give an impression to current and potential customers that we're constantly working ahead and moving forward while the new and evolving features in PA will justify that perception.

[Luxor]

Originally Posted by Mili

Nice input fellas!
In terms of 2012 or 2013, say we complete all the great features (&more maybe) in May/June and that would, depending on the official release date, give only about 6 months of PA 2012 actually being in 2012. Then what?
With that, I think PA 2013 would give a better advantage marketing wise as it will give an impression to current and potential customers that we're constantly working ahead and moving forward while the new and evolving features in PA will justify that perception.

That's a good enough explanation as to why 2013 would be preferable solution Mili.

Makes sense when you put it like that.

[spwolf]

as mili said, ZTE/AC is completely separate and first beta will be out soon Richard... PAF wont be there for another 6-10 months at least, lots of work.

[Mili]

Tx Luxor!
Keep em coming folks!

[Sir Richard]

I would prefer conexware to go from 2011 to 2013 to be honest, i think i made that fairly clear. it all depends on what is actually being done in the background.

Obviosly, you dont tell us everything that is going on so all i know is what is listed and bits inbetween during testing.

ZTE is a seperate application i understand. But it also uses cloud service which is very new and in trial stages if that takes longer to setup than ZTE then would it not be best to release it togeather thus giving more time for testing and tweaks.

It all depends how quick you want to make the cash on that app.

But its you company, your plan.

I hold no weight in your deciding factors, i mearly aid when asked too and offer my thoughts from time to time.

[spwolf]

basically, is it weird to call something 2013 when it is released in May, or June or July 2012?

[Luxor]

Originally Posted by spwolf

basically, is it weird to call something 2013 when it is released in May, or June or July 2012?

If it is released in these months then yes I would say it's weird to call it PA2013. But as Mili says that only gives you 6 months to play with then you are into 2013.

So in a marketing viewpoint PA2013 makes more sense.

Guess that's the problem with tagging on the year when naming PowerArchiver versions.

Maybe you should just call it PoweArchiver 13 and drop the 2000 part altogether.

[TBGBe]

Well, why not harmonize with the version numbering?

So PA2012 - PA 12.5.xxx
(e.g. maybe an update with only PAF)
For May/June.
PA2013 - PA 13.xx (all the good stuff)
For Dec/Jan.

[spwolf]

Originally Posted by TBGBe

Well, why not harmonize with the version numbering?

So PA2012 - PA 12.5.xxx
(e.g. maybe an update with only PAF)
For May/June.
PA2013 - PA 13.xx (all the good stuff)
For Dec/Jan.

year is only marketing term... version number shows how many changes there were. but yeah, something like that was what I was thinking...

[Sir Richard]

I'm not disputing the 2012/2013 bit of course it would be 2012 if it was released this year, but if was around october you might as well make it beta 2013.

Again, it depends on at what point you are to make the choice. is pa at a point where you could release a major roll out.

Personally, PA works great as it is, i see no reason to rush development this year. unless its to resolve bugs i dont mind waiting till next year.

We have ZTE, Cloud and Wiki to keep us all busy.

Originally Posted by Luxor

Maybe you should just call it PoweArchiver 13 and drop the 2000 part altogether.

I like that idea!! get rid of the year all togeather, why not make 2013 not only a modern improved version but rename the version to PowerArchiver 13.0

[Innuendo]

Originally Posted by Luxor

Maybe you should just call it PoweArchiver 13 and drop the 2000 part altogether.

I was just going to make this suggestion.

Way back in 1995 Microsoft started this "name the product after the year it came out" convention & then Norton (and lots of others quickly followed). You'll notice that almost all of them have abandoned that method of naming for more conventional methods.

My guess is for the reason SPWolf voiced...once it becomes a new year your product sounds 'out-dated' even if it came out just a couple months before the calendar change.

I vote for PowerArchiver v13.0. Prominently displaying that the program is in its 13th major version shows that it is a very mature piece of code that's been around a long time and trusted by its users.

Naming it something like PowerArchiver 2012 or 2013 really doesn't reveal anything about how mature/reliable the program or the program's roots.

[KarbonKopy]

2013 all the way

[Micke]

Originally Posted by Innuendo

I vote for PowerArchiver v13.0. Prominently displaying that the program is in its 13th major version shows that it is a very mature piece of code that's been around a long time and trusted by its users.

The version number don't tell the user how old the current version is. Instead I suggest you skip the version number in the name and instead use YY.MM in the name. That way the name will tell you how long the current version has been released.

Naming it something like PowerArchiver 2012 or 2013 really doesn't reveal anything about how mature/reliable the program or the program's roots.

You can say the same by using version number. The version number doesn't tell you anything about how mature/reliable the program is. Example of this is Inkscape that has version 0.48, but is a very mature and reliable program. On the other hand, Firefox release a new version number every 6 week, but that doesn't make the program more mature.

The point is, version number don't matter and therefore don't have to be part of the software name.

Kind Regards
Micke

[pjb]

I agree with Luxor & Innuendo - I think removing the year would be a good move, and give it a version number. A version number does not make the product feel as dated, nor does it then tie you to a specific release date etc.

[davidsplash]

what you dont want is to change the version numbers widely. I would suggest that you yuse the above suggestion say 13 for year and mm for month and a b c or d for the version numbers for that month if you need bug fixes that month

[Johnmoglas]

Why don't we try to get rid of the numbers?In my opinion Power Archiver neo/beta/Alpha sounds cooler then Power Archiver 2012 or 2013!!

[Sir Richard]

Originally Posted by Johnmoglas

Why don't we try to get rid of the numbers?In my opinion Power Archiver neo/beta/Alpha sounds cooler then Power Archiver 2012 or 2013!!

Using "Beta" "Alpha" are typical stages of development and you have them in every version developed.

And technically we do PowerArchiver - "Profesional", "Legacy" and "Toolbox".

Having Version numbers are really helpfull as it can give you an instant idea of the age of the product when you visit the site.

[TBGBe]

Or get rid of Numbers altogether !?
What about "PowerArchiver Niburu "

[Sir Richard]

Originally Posted by TBGBe

Or get rid of Numbers altogether !?
What about "PowerArchiver Niburu "

Not to sure about that fella !

However, its a good metaphor for what PowerArchiver might do to our Competitors.. Wipe them out! Boom

[spwolf]

PowerArchiver NXT
PowerArchiver X
PowerArchiver Destroyer/Nibiru

hmmm

:-)

[Sir Richard]

oh dear, we are off track again.

Ok, i will make the deciding factor.

A mid update for 2011 will be brought out containing current patch's, minor bug fix's and enhancments.

ZTE, Wiki and PAF will remain in development during this year and tested by the development team and us highly skilled alphas!

PowerArchiver title will adjust taking out the year. thus keeping version number much like many other brands.

The cloud service will be a job to look at when ZTE has reached a stable version with all major bugs resolved. This means we can focus on testing the cloud service more than the application.

Well thats how i would manage this process.

[spwolf]

Wiki will be in next PA for sure, not waiting for end of year... and few other things too :-).

[Sir Richard]

Great on the wiki thing! because its a great tool to have. also updates can be made without local downloads to each user client.

There are a few things i am keen for;

1. ZTE
2. PAF Format
3. Developer Tab [the custom tab] no confirmation if you are looking at it but if that is a v13 update thats fine by me
4. Cloud

the cloud thing isnt a major for me because i already have cloud services such as LiveDrive and Box. both with windows shell extensions and share to user abilities.

However, that doesnt mean i dont see the advantage for Conexware to go down the route. I do remember sending an email over a year ago to you drazen suggesting such a feature and you replied saying it was on the thinking board already.

"great minds think a like"

[spwolf]

Originally Posted by Sir Richard

Great on the wiki thing! because its a great tool to have. also updates can be made without local downloads to each user client.

There are a few things i am keen for;

1. ZTE
2. PAF Format
3. Developer Tab [the custom tab] no confirmation if you are looking at it but if that is a v13 update thats fine by me
4. Cloud

the cloud thing isnt a major for me because i already have cloud services such as LiveDrive and Box. both with windows shell extensions and share to user abilities.

However, that doesnt mean i dont see the advantage for Conexware to go down the route. I do remember sending an email over a year ago to you drazen suggesting such a feature and you replied saying it was on the thinking board already.

"great minds think a like"

i recently went through my logs and found first time talking about something similar to AC was 2007 :-)

[Marc]

PowerArchiver Reloaded

[Socrates]

Rather than shoot a major release every year, why not just say: every two years. Then make sure that it is a MAJOR release.

Quite frankly, I find it annoying with companies feel compelled to do something every year, when the differences between any year (or even every two years) is relatively slight.

In my mind FF hurt themselves when they stopped waiting 3-4 years for a major release, and started issues new releases every few months.