greenman92

Hi researcher, I agree with your observation that a "different revenue structure" for UltraFS would have been better. The lifetime data subscription gave a big boost to revenue but was not sustainable over the long haul. It would have been better to have a modest ongoing monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and/or annual subscription fee for the data and a website to track and support the data subscribers. That would have provided a sustainable revenue stream with little effort provided that the daily data collection and posting was automated. Then he could have focused on the application improvements. Regards, greenman92

Thanks, MKey, for your response. Based on the dates, I was not sure if this thread had any life left in it. I was one of those individuals who bought into UltraFS shortly before Steve Hunter mysteriously disappeared. I was hoping that his absence was temporary due to various reasons and that he would return. I now accept that this is not the case. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to evaluate UltraFS. Doing so requires a lot of experimentation. I agree that it would be tedious to manually enter the data daily. However, I see that UltraFS uses 112 datapoints on the data entry window to run its various analyses. Also, these data are available on the internet and it would be possible to automate the process to collect the data and format it for input into UltraFS. This would take some effort. Before I attempt it, can you answer my question: Is UltraFS any good and would it be worth the effort? OR Considering that this is an old application, is there some other application out there that would be better? Perhaps you or someone else here can provide some guidance. Thanks.

If you own the UltraFS application and it is any good, why wouldn't you just manually enter the required data to keep it up to date? Why would you need Steve Hunter?