Source language: Translate to:

TRichView for Word Processing

Questions about NeoBook PlugIns

Moderator: Neosoft Support

TRichView for Word Processing

Postby eddy current » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:44 pm

Has anyone created (or thought of creating) a plugin to take advantage of the Delphi TRichView component (http://www.trichview.com/), a very powerful editor for note-taking and word-processing applications?
-- Glen
eddy current
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 7:24 pm

Postby Luiz Alfredo » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:51 pm

Has my vote for DEC's Next Plugin.
L.A.G.M.
Luiz Alfredo
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:58 am
Location: Brazil

Postby HPW » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:28 am

Hello,

TRichView license is not cheap.
Does it allow to build a wrapper to another dev-component?

And have you had a look at: Editors toolbox

http://www.neosoftware.com/neobook/modu ... d=9&lid=40

Hans-Peter
Hans-Peter
User avatar
HPW
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:24 pm
Location: Germany

Postby eddy current » Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:50 am

Thanks for your reply, Hans-Peter. While the component is expensive, its feature set is very rich -- great graphics handling, table building, and import/export facilities. For an educational application I am producing, I require some of these features (beyond what Editor's Toolbox provides.)

Don't get me wrong. I use Editor's Toolbox in most of my other pubs (its a great simple plugin), but it hasn't been updated since 1.75 and does not have a roadmap for enhancing its feature set. Therefore, I need to look elsewhere for longer-term, future development.

Are there any other comparable word-processing components that you are using in your applications?

-- Glen
eddy current
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 7:24 pm

Postby datadon » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:47 pm

Don't remember if I have seen this before, but what about the option of various Neobookers chipping in for a component. The owner would be the developer. He can do what he wants with it, but he must create a plugin that would meet the needs of those chipping in, but not beyond reason. Then they would be entitled to 1 free plugin. The dev can then sell as many other copies, but not any cheaper than the total cost of the component divided by the number of chippers in. Huh?

If there were $330, and 6 chipped in, were talking about $55 each.

Just depend on how many want to chip in to decide if it is viable.

Any comments?

What do the dev's say?
Don

'If you want to get a brontosaurus from 'a' to 'b' then you ride the dinosaur - you don't carry it!'
User avatar
datadon
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:55 pm
Location: Lorena Texas

Postby HPW » Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:07 am

>He can do what he wants with it, ...

Thats the question here. Does the component license allow this?
I have seen many dev tools the does not allow exactly this.
Making a wrapper around a big component is so much lesser work than build it yourself. Worst case you would hurt the market of the original developer.
So when it is prohibited each plugin customer would need to buy the original component license to have the right to use it in this plugin.

The plugin developer could only charge to providing the wrapper, because he could not charge for a thing he did not own.
And he would need to proof that his customer is a legal user of the component.
Hans-Peter
User avatar
HPW
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:24 pm
Location: Germany

from license.txt

Postby AlfB » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:16 am

in my opinion it should be possible to share price of developer to different customers:

Registered users (owners of licensed copy of RichView Package)
are granted a license whereby they are free to use
registered version in their applications,
and to distribute such applications as they want.
They may not distribute or resell this package separately,
or any portion of it.
They may not distribute any components from RichView
Package to any unregistered user in any form
(source code, DCU, DLL, ActiveX etc) without author’s
written permission.
Registered users may alter the source files
but must not distribute them to any unregistered user.
They may not use any part of the source code to build
any other components for public distribution or
commercial sale.

hope that helps

AlfB
User avatar
AlfB
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:43 am

Postby HPW » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:06 am

They may not use any part of the source code to build
any other components for public distribution or
commercial sale.


That's what I mean.
Hans-Peter
User avatar
HPW
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:24 pm
Location: Germany

Postby datadon » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:10 am

I thought the purpose of purchasing a component was so you could produce something with it? That is, have resale rights to your custom product.

If a component cannot be included in your product then it is not what we would need for this. I presume it all depends on the license rights you are buying.
Don

'If you want to get a brontosaurus from 'a' to 'b' then you ride the dinosaur - you don't carry it!'
User avatar
datadon
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:55 pm
Location: Lorena Texas

Postby Gaev » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:52 am

Hans-Peter, Don:

What this means is that ... assuming they were being sold as components ... you can buy the secret recipe for KFC (chicken) or Coke (the drink) ...

1) but you can't then compete with these organizations simply by wrapping your end product in a 'Neo Fried Chicken' or 'Neo Coke' container.

2) but you could provide a space for people to sit down and eat 'Neo Chicken AND Coke' while watching the SuperBowl on a 60" screen ... and charge them $10 for each bottle of 'Neo Beer' they consume :-)

... basically, it comes down to ...

1) is your practice taking away (hurting) the component seller's sales ?

2) is the component seller willing to stand for it ?


My suggestion would be to ask the component seller ...

1) here is the intended use ... do you approve ?

2) would you like to provide a variant of the component that can be plugged into the NeoBook ecosystem ? ... and for what unit price ?

3) if I were to develop a 'NeoWrapper' for your component, would you like to go into a revenue sharing deal ?


If the overall market for his component is not huge, the seller might want to keep all the possible sales in all the variant markets to himself.

But if the sales of this component are large enough that the seller does not want to put the extra effort into making a variant for the relatively small NeoBook market, he might be willing to consider some revenue sharing arrangement with a NeoBook plugin developer ... be it a third party or Dave Riley.
User avatar
Gaev
 
Posts: 3737
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:48 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby dec » Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:20 am

Luiz Alfredo wrote:Has my vote for DEC's Next Plugin.


Image

:)
.
Enhance your NeoBook applications!
.
58 plugins, 1131 actions and 233 samples
.
NeoPlugins website: www.neoplugins.com
.
User avatar
dec
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:48 am
Location: Spain

Postby eddy current » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:45 pm

Yes, I use the CodeJock ActiveX Controls with the SoftVelocity Clarion database development tool. A third-party developer produced a wrapper for the CodeJock controls and then negotiated a reduced price for sales of the wrapper+control from CodeJock -- 40% discount if I remember correctly. More sales for the developer of the component and additional commission revenue for the wrapper developer isn't a bad thing. So, that is one approach.

Another option is to find a comparable control that is either open-sourced or to use the standard Windows components (as does Editor's Toolbox, I believe.) I'm not married to TRichView, although it seems to be one of the better options. And, yes, I'd be willing to share costs with other users.

-- Glen
eddy current
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 7:24 pm


Return to PlugIn Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest