When all is said and done, though, as long as people rate the software according to its abilities, and not to the pricing policies of the vendor (which are very much open to comment, but not a rating, I believe), then this place should continue to work just fine.
Why not list the paid version, but say that there's also a free version that only does a single page at a time, for example? But it's a bit back-to-front ethically, for me. It feels a bit like an attempt to hook you on the free version so that you'll feel compelled to pay up for the greater capabilities of the paid one. Our note taking app helps you capture and prioritize ideas, projects and to-do lists, so nothing falls through the cracks. I must admit, I do feel that this particular sales tactic is less than ideal. I don't want to buy into the discussion about free versus paid versions at a vitriolic level, but I would like to suggest that it might be ethical for software developers to name their packages in ways that show potential users what they're getting into.įor example, the use of LE to show that a program is a 'light' or 'limited' version is usually fairly clear to anyone who's been using computers for a while.
