Assuming I've read the business model correctly, I wonder why Accordance doesn't open-source its Bible *reader* -- particularly since throughout this thread the theme in many replies is that "(1) it would take 2 years and (2) we have neat features that would be more useful." If the reader code were open-sourced then the 7 or 7,000 programmers worldwide who want to fix bugs or port to AmigaOS or whatever could go to work on it at no cost to Accordance, other than (maybe) maintaining a bug database and CVS-type repository. I realize that it's more likely to be 7 than 7,000 but it's *free*. And I wouldn't be surprised if a top desire of those 7 is not Cocoa but native Windows. So they go off and do it, at no cost to Accordance, and it might take 3 years (witness Mozilla Firefox before it's beta quality). But it's at no cost to Accordance and would be a huge increase in market.
The only downside *I* can imagine is if the DRM for the module content is located not in the modules but in the reader. Related to that, there is the possibility that competitors, knowing how the reader works, could produce content to run in it. There could be a race for the bottom at least on public-domain works (Matthew Henry commentary, KJV, etc.). But again that would free up resources at Accordance to be spent encoding more exotic licensed products like the newer commentaries and all sorts of scholarly material.
Just speculation. It could be that most of your customers just get the starter pack.
Helen: New topic started and link added to previous topic.
Edited by Helen Brown, 05 February 2006 - 07:25 AM.