They have, in general, two types of licensing. They have a runtime license and a development license. I use the development license for the development process, and in order to have customers, I have to purchase deployment licenses. Those licenses can be per server, per user, per computer, or something else. There are all kinds of combinations. 

The problem is that I put time and effort into it and pay for the development license, and then I can't sell it to my client as is. They have to purchase additional licenses in order to use what I built. It's not a fair approach. Let me buy the development suite or a pack of licenses. There is no need for them to put the burden on the clients to pay for the licenses.

Even worse is how to explain that to a client. Many times I get a response from a client saying, "Your software is good, but why do I have to pay additionally? I'm paying for the software, but the prices for those licenses are quite expensive." If a company has 100 users, that'll easily add a few thousand dollars to the invoice. 

I'm trying to position myself on the market as affordable, but then I go to the client, and they say, "Actually, we have 150 users, not 70." I have to say, "Oh, okay. That means my price is not this one, the price is higher." For example, I might tell my clients, "Okay, the new seat for my application is $30 per user." Then, they have to pay $120 for the xpa license, so it's $150 instead of $30. That's a lot. They are pretty much forced to pay for the license or they cannot use the application. 

In certain cases, for example, whenever I have something simple with many users, I will go with something else and not use xpa. I would rate the pricing as a two out of five, especially if you combine the complexity of developing something modern and up-to-date with the licensing model and overall pricing. It's not possible to develop very modern Windows-based applications because of the technical limitations, and then we have the very bad and highly-priced end user licensing model.

For an organization, it's okay. For an individual person or for a small startup, the license cost is high.

It's a bit expensive, but since we have flexibility of usage, it's worth the cost.

The licensing cost varies because nowadays Magic has tailor-made offerings for clients, including one-time use licenses. It also depends on how you are using the solution. Are you using a web application? Because that's a different license strategy than native Magic applications. For a web application, you only pay for the engine that runs on the web server and it doesn't matter if you are servicing 100 users or 100,000 users. You cannot convert that cost into a cost per user.

I think the solution is worth the money. 

Magic is not the cheapest IDE out there. If you are considering Magic xpa, you should do a cost-benefit analysis to feel comfortable with your decision. The Magic sales staff is very helpful in providing pricing.

There are different licenses, we have the application and the online application. There are two different licenses for two different program sites for the Magic xpa Application Platform.

The licensing is too costly. The runtime cost is very expensive, especially in respect of a big server with many clients. So too, the development tool is expensive, as is the yearly maintenance cost.

There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fee. 

In spite of the solution's high cost, we see a very large return on our investment. It allows one to develop extremely fast and make specific customized solutions to fit the bill of each customer with tremendous simplicity. As such, the solution seems worth its high expense. 

The main problem with the Magic xpa Application Platform is pricing. You have to pay a lot of money for development, and you also have to pay a lot for the deployments and runtime, while in most competitors, you have to pay a lot for one of the two and not both.

It's at least seven thousand Euros, and the cost makes it challenging to get new developers, and it isn't easy to convince customers to go for the Magic xpa Application Platform. My company has lost a lot of customers because of this problem.

The solution has a free version but only allows one user at a time, so it's difficult to test it, even when you can develop for free. My company has a free version, but that version is only used occasionally.

It's not cheap. 

The licenses are not cheap. Not at all. They cost much money. There are other tools with free licenses but Magic asks for a lot of money.

The pricing for the product is a little high. The problem is the license for the development version of xpa has to be paid for, and then also the runtime has to be paid in addition. So it is not an optimal solution for a developer because of the additional runtime costs.