@KMan: I would prefer to see all editions using the same full-featured product, so we can all experience the same benefits but just on different scales. Keep the content and concurrent user limits, and give the enterprise people the load balancing and source code they need.
I respectfully disagree, and consider separating products based on features to be the norm for software.
I see the problem as being the decision to demarcate the products based both on features AND licensed use, setting arbitrary values for the second of these, and forcing customers to pay for the usage licenses even if they only wanted the features.
Again, offering my 2c worth, I believe that this could be better managed by taking a leaf from Microsoft’s server product pricing book... even if only in concept.
Instead of bundling each version with licensed access/use for an arbitrary number of users, pages and items, the values of “Concurrent CMS Users”, “Number of Sitemap Pages”, “Number of Content Items”, could instead be MAXIMUM SUPPORTED values for each version, but with each version only being bundled with the lowest possible values of each setting, i.e. the free version’s values.
The customer buys the version which provides the features, applications and capacity limits it provides.
The customer then buys license keys to allow use of the version they bought, to match the demands of their implementation environment.
e.g. So, just to create an example... I might buy a copy of Professional simply because I want a specific feature it offers. It also has higher maximum capacities for CMSUSERS, PAGES and ITEMS, but, it only comes packaged with licensed values of CMSUSERS:1, PAGES:25, ITEMS:250. I pay more for the Professional version than the Standard version because of the extra features and maximum capacities it provides, but I don’t pay an excessively inflated price for an arbitrary packaged license of users, pages and items. Instead, I work out how many CMS users, pages and items I need to provide access for, and I then buy the appropriate usage license keys (in blocks) to match my requirements. I pay for what I need, both in features and usage, and I don’t pay for unused license fees of users, pages, items that my installation may never require.
This could allow Telerik to reduce the nominal price of each version, while allowing them to charge for higher use of each version.
Obviously, Telerik’s challenge would then be to develop features and applications that would be of benefit to each market sector, and use them to separate the products, along with the capacity limits they consider appropriate to each version.
This is the conceptual approach that Microsoft take with their server products... each version of a product offers varying features and capacities that create implicit usage limits, and is priced accordingly. However, each version only comes with a minimal access license, and you purchase additional access according to your needs.