[re-posted from the end of another thread]:
I'm just curious if anyone thinks having 3 separate versions of GPO as planned will detract at least psychologically from the original complete-orchestra-for-one-low-price concept of the original in prospective new purchasers' minds, ie. now (as with much other tiered-type software), users will have to evaluate whether they will be missing out by buying GPOLite, will get everything they need with GPO2, or should splurge and get GPOAdvanced. I know there's an obvious argument for more features and that Gary understandably couldn't add such features indefinitely for free (it is, after all, a business :-)) and I presume GPOLite is designed to offset the higher-priced offering by offering a correspondingly even lower-cost solution. But does anybody think that the three-tiered structure takes something away from the simplicity of the original concept?
Nah, I think it's still pretty simple, and now offers more people options to be involved how they want to be. I know some people who were very interested in GPO, but only to mess around with a bit, or to use one or two instruments as additional accompaniment for rock songs or whatever. I think GPOLite will be ideal for them. And then there's probably some people for whom GPO didn't seem quite "professional" enough (or maybe not quite expensive enough?) for them to give it a chance compared to things like the Vienna libraries. I don't know... But I'm sure we'll see many more GPO superheros joining our ranks in the near future, precisely because of these additional offerings.
And they're all upgradable, no matter which one you start with. GPO Lite is a smaller GPO centric package, upgradeable to GPO 2 the regular edition, upgradeable to GPO Advanced with more instruments, articulations, and extras. Everyone wins in my mind.