Do You Pay for Your Shareware? 898
geddes writes: "Ambrosia Software, an independent Macintosh shareware developer, has just published an article about the effect Piracy has on thier small business. They recently implemented a new serial number scheme where the software connected to thier server to verify reigistration, and found that in two days, of the 197 of the users trying to verify thier codes, 107 were using pirated ones. Crime always hurts the little guy more."
Product activation one step closer to reality (Score:5, Interesting)
It sucks, but it is inevitable. I have written 2 small shareware packages, and sold exactly 6 copies at 10$. Today I still receive help requests from users on a weekly basis... Definitely more that 6 users out there !
Re:Product activation one step closer to reality (Score:5, Interesting)
This remark also holds for games. You live off support fees for a game ! There are free web communities for that...
You have to understand that there is *A LOT* of software that simply needs to be payed for, albeit only a little amount. Unless people are forced to pay for it, they won't. I have given up on shareware development at all, concentrating on lage project development. Tools that I make in those projects are no longer distributed because the effort of writing documentation and making a good interface remain unrewarded. For me, this is not a drama, but for companies like ambrosia, it's hell. Shine on it the way you like, but PA is the only solution for them.
Re:Product activation one step closer to reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Product activation one step closer to reality (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but there's probably a lesson to be learned in an existing situation: bottled water. To get you started, compare a buyer's reason for buying Evian and a buyer's reason for choosing (note the wording) Microsoft products.
Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
You, sir, just dictated the thieves creed, and it's the justification that bands of criminals have used throughout time to justify their ways. Do you rob banks because the teller is a bitch anyways? Do you dine and dash because there's always some reason that the dinner wasn't worthwhile?
You have ABSOLUTELY no right to set the price on other people's software ventures: If you don't like it, DON'T USE IT. If those utils and BBS doors are so common, then why the hell don't you use a free one or write one yourself? Oh, right, because you couldn't do what they did (that's "so easy") if you tried your hardest.
hmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The people are appling the same logic the gambler uses when he curses himself for not betting $100 instend of $10 think that he has just lost $90.
All that is going to happen is that their punters are going to go somewhere else.
Btw someone will crack this is ten seconds anyway.
Re:hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
This may be true for expensive products where the home user is not the market. However, it is absolutely not true for inexpensive products where the pirate *is* the target market. Based on experience with my company's product (software for students), I'd estimate that probably 25% of the people trying to reactivate pirated software would register if the screen came up indicating that
At that point, many (even including students!) will fork out $25 so that they don't have to feel like complete weasels...
(Caveat: Our experience is with students phoning for technical support on the pirated software...)
Also, with Ambrosia, they're already providing part of the game free, so they're gaining little extra mindshare with people pirating the whole thing.
Don't feed the pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
He understood that, but is now trying to use that mindshare to make his company something an MBA would recognize. The goal is money. As he put it:
And as things go, this was all fine and good -- except that eventually Andrew graduated and everyone else got sick of pizza and beer. Ambrosia grew from an interesting sideline into a full time place of employment. The company became an entity with its own purpose, its own office space, and its own gravitational pull. It also had an insatiable appetite for cash, because as any MBA will tell you, the lifeblood of business is green.
They have made many obvious errors that you don't need an MBA to figure out. Their first error is to ignore their competition. The second is that they have provided an incentive for honest people to cheat.
These folks are going to have competition, large and small forever. I can walk into WalMart and buy any of ID software's fine games for $15, ten bucks cheaper than Ambrosia. Yep, then bucks makes a difference to pizza and beer budgets. It's funny how ID software has not made their games as bothersome as this, if you dissregard the backdoors that most pizza and beer dudes don't know about. Now that Mac is on a kind of BSD, this dude's competition problem is about to get worse. There will always be someone willing to make pizza and beer money, or even just friends, giving their software away.
The second huge mistake he's made is to inconvienence his honest clients. If his registration process was really easier than obtaining crack codes, honest people would not obtain crack codes. It's a really bad idea to give honest people that kind of incentive. It breeds the worst of ill will and makes them a friend of the cracker, who has now done them the favor of giving them back software they paid for and owned. That user might even go to that cracker later and give him $15 to obtain a cracked no registration version of your next game, no charge for his silent backdoors.
This is clearly undesirable and one of the reasons software should not have owners. What you end up with is a world littered with stolen, unmodifiable, backdoored computers. It's a place that ultimatly defeats itself but allows much other mischief at the same time. All those backdoors and cracks will be used for DoS attacks, setting up ftp servers that flood the world with more comercial crap, spam mail launces and what have you. The inconvienience of software registrations of this kind may be the only way his company can make as much money as he wants but look at the world it creates. ID Software has been moving in the right direction, and he might want to use them as a model again, before his mindsare dissapears.
Re:Don't feed the pirates (Score:4, Informative)
Well, let's be honest. Most ID games did not start out in the bargain bin, and the games you find there are 2 years (and 2 generations) old. Our latest game [deimosrising.com] is just $20. If you can't afford that much for a new game and at least a week's entertainment, then you should just play checkers with your cat. =)
The second huge mistake he's made is to inconvienence his honest clients. If his registration process was really easier than obtaining crack codes, honest people would not obtain crack codes.
Well, the registration process has 2 limitations that surfing the net for a license code doesn't: you have to wait for us to process your order (normally 1 business day), and you have to actually pay for the software. It's not shrinkwrap software, so you can't buy it at the store, but Snapz is fully functional for 15 days (and watermarks images after that) -- you get a fair chance to use it and see if it meets your needs.
We've considered automating the registration process further, but you'd be surprised by the number of registrations need to be massaged when they come in... incorrect email addresses or comments like "I may have registered this already, can you tell if I did so my card isn't charged?" For now, a human is still necessary to proof the information.
I applaud anyone who can afford to write free software, but I still need a day job to feed my family.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Re:Don't feed the pirates (Score:3, Informative)
It's interesting that you mention that people are willing to pay for software if it's easier to pay than to get the crack codes.
There has only been one occasion when I have searched for a crack code, and that was when the software I had (music CD playing software) was exactly what I wanted, without all the bells and whistles you typically see. I tried to register the software, but the company had been absorbed into a bell'n'whistles music CD software producing company that gave their software away as freeware. As a result I couldn't pay for the simple software that I wanted, so I eventually gave up and got a crack code.
I try and pay for any shareware I use on a frequent basis if I think it is fairly priced, and it's simple enough to pay. If not, then I either delete it, or just stop using it. The one exception at the moment is WinZip - and I'll pay for that soon, it just seems to be that I never remember to register it when I have my credit card to hand...doh.
-- Pete.
Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Troll)
Sure, software companies would argue that they spend a lot on R&D, and that they have the right to profit as much as they can from what they have made. But there is such a thing as making something for a buck and selling it for 10, and every reasonable moral person knows that something is wrong with this axiom.
Furthermore, one of the reasons why software isn't held in as much material regard as hardware is simply because that it is fundamentally intangible. In a sense, the human psyche therefore construes that it has little material value. Common folks in general don't really know the processes that occur within a program and it would be too cumbersome to educate them.
Though this is not an excuse to buy pirated software, it is clear that people are simply not ready to pay so much money for something that they simply can't physically hold on to as much or something that simply offers them marginal benefits, how much of MS Office does a typical user use anyway?
The balance still has to be struck somewhere, but with the fact that there are so many who are growing disproportionately richer selling software, and with most consumers only receiving marginal benefits from their applications, we begin to realize that there is something definitely wrong with this equation.
There are of course exceptions to every rule.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its called the profit motive - its related to something called capitalism - you may have heard of it. Theft is theft - justifying it by saying that companies charge too much is attempting to skirt the issue.
Not justification (Score:2)
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:2)
Companies can make profits without making excessive profits, however. Many industries are regulated to prevent the latter. There is no divine right to ripping off the consumer.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, me, you and everyone else indirectly through regulation enacted by our elected officials. That's what democracy is all about.
Attempts to regulate businesses' profits is getting close to Socialism, which obviously doesn't work.
That isn't obvious at all. Sure, Stalinism failed, but there are plenty of partially socialist countries out there like Sweden and Canada which aren't doing so badly. In fact, they generally beat the US according to the UN's quality of life index. (BTW, although I live in Canada, I'm a US citizen by birth, so that isn't just nationalistic posturing)
Remember the rolling blackouts in California? Those were due to power companies not being able to charge what they needed to to sell power, thus, there simply wasn't enough to go around.
Yes, but that was caused by partial *deregulation*, thus demonstrating the need for regulation. Those blackouts didn't happen in the many years of full regulation, nor do they happen now in places were full regulation is in place.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:5, Insightful)
The value of something is the value it provides to you. If you use MS Office once every two years to update your resume, then it has next to no value for you because you could always do it at work or the library instead. If you use Office everyday then it has VERY high value to you.
A $20 piece of shareware is certainly worth $20 if the only thing stpping you from paying the $20 is the fact that you can instead choose to continue using it without paying. The shareware model assumed that people were much more honest and fair then they are - the attitudes on slashdot are presumably somewhat typical - people not only usualy steal "bits" if they can, but feel justified in doing so!
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume you have a good that costs $1 to produce. Assume that there are 100 people who would purchase this good. 50 of them can afford and would pay $50 for it, the other fifty cannot afford $50 but can afford $2.
Even though you would make a profit of $100 by pricing it at $2, you make a profit of $2450 by pricing it at $50, even though you reducing the size of your customer base by half.
Now, let us assume that the good you are producing is, for example, a vaccine for a fatal disease.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not you think the price they were asking was fair is irrelevent. If you disagree with the price, you take your dollars elseware. I'd love a 22" apple cinema display, I just can't afford it. That doesn't give me the right to break into compUSA and take one.
The fact that software is much easier to reproduce doesn't change anything. When I buy a piece of software, in my mind, I'm not paying primarily for the media, or the packaging, or the booklet. I know the costs of all that are factored in, but that's not my main concern. I'm paying for the utility of the program, or maybe the entertainment that it's going to bring me.
If ambrosia makes a game that I play for 2 hours a day for a month, that's 60 hours of entertainment. If they want $15 for that, that's not unreasonable at all. That's way more bang for my buck than I'll get going out to see a movie. When I walk out of a movie, all I've got to show for it is a ticket stub. After the shareware game has lost its initial excitement, I've still got a legit copy of it for those future rainy days, and hopefully my registration has helped convince a talented bunch of programmers/artists to release more good work.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you break into compUSA and carry something away, then they wouldn't have it anymore. If I copy your software, you will still have as much software as you had before. This is not just wordplay, it's a very real difference.
This whole "intellectual property" issue has been turned around and distorted by the software and entertainment industries. The limited privilege governments give to companies and people to sell their intellectual creations does not, in any way, reflect any intrinsic "right" on that "property". That limited privilege is granted as an incentive to further intellectual creation. When it ceases to have that effect, the privilege should be revoked.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3)
Everyone is pretending like they're in the developer's position, and saying that they haven't lost anything. That's comfortably convenient for them, because it makes them feel less guilt.
Look it it from the software pirate's view. He/she has gotten possession of a product without paying for it. They have taken something without the right to do so. That is theft.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they have copied something without the right to do so.
That is theft.
It is not theft. It is coppyright infringement. The law makes a very clear distinction.
I'm not saying its legal, but I wish people would quit confusing the issues by miscategorizing copyright infringement.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you break into compUSA and carry something away, then they wouldn't have it anymore. If I copy your software, you will still have as much software as you had before. This is not just wordplay, it's a very real difference.
This whole "intellectual property" issue has been turned around and distorted by the software and entertainment industries.
You know, you're right. But the way I see it, you're not paying for property (intellectual or otherwise) when you buy software. You are paying for the *service* that the programmer provided. IMO, a much better term would be "intellectual service". When you look at it that way, the whole "but there's no loss of property" argument becomes moot. Would you not consider it stealing if someone agreed to pay you if you cleaned their house for a month, then after the month is up, refused to pay?
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Selling is perfectly all right according to the GPL. Many companies, such as RedHat, Caldera, Suse, etc, sell GPL'ed software they got free from someone else.
My point is that there is no crime if no one is harmed. I think the moral approach is the only valid one when considering laws. Immoral laws may exist, but we are under no obligation to comply with them. The Romans had a saying "non omne licitum honestum" (sp?), meaning something can be dishonest, yet lawful.
But the pro-IP arguments are that someone is being hurt by my not doing something, i.e. not buying their software. I consider myself under no obligation to buy something, unless I feel the benefits outweigh the cost. Let's say I occasionally write a few letters, and am thinking of getting some word processing software. Suppose I have four alternatives: 1) buy a copy of Microsoft Office, 2) get a pirated copy of Microsoft Office, 3) get a free copy of StarOffice, or 4) write all my letters by longhand. Microsoft would be equally hurt by any of the alternatives 2, 3, or 4. Why is 2 a crime, while 3 and 4 are not? Because, theoretically, it's not Microsoft who is being hurt by piracy, it's society as a whole.
IP laws do not exist to benefit inventors or artists, they exist to generate an incentive for inventors and artists to create the things society wants or needs. In the USA, at least, the Constitution states very clearly that the reason for patents and copyrights is promote the development of new ideas, and is NOT, in any way, a right of their developers. When that effect stops working, IP has no moral or lawful reason to exist anymore. The free software phenomenon is clearly demonstrating that much better products are made without economic incentive than commercially. We should consider if it wouldn't be best for society to make IP independent from commercial considerations.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is incorrect. I'm going to speculate that the reason you made this argument is the misconception that the key distinction between software and other properties is tangibility, rather than cost of reproduction. This is also incorrect.
While electricity itself is intangible, except in its effect (like software), the fact is that it shares a critical feature with common goods, like cars: If you take some, there is less for everyone else. A power plant only outputs a finite amount of power, and any power I use they had to produce, whether I payed for it or not. For plants that run off non-renewable resources such as coal, this should be even more obvious.
Whereas with software, the only cost for me to make a copy is, in fact, the electricity needed for my computer to carry out the operation (which I'm paying the electric company for). The software company does not have to go press another CD every time I make a copy. They don't experience the event at all. They have the exact same amount of software to sell.
So the whole difference is that with electricity, like any other truly scarce good, when you steal some you've deprived the company of something directly. The only way to show deprivation of the company of some resource with software copying is if you can prove the hypothesis that the person who receives the illegal copy would have bought the software if they had been unable to attain an illegal copy.
This is highly debatable, and from my own experience demonstrably false in many cases. Even myself, when I used to think copying software was cool -- There were many tools that I'd use if I could get a free copy, but if a free copy wasn't available, there was no way in hell that I'd pay for it. In those cases the hypothesis is provably FALSE because a free copy was not available and yet I did not purchase the software. Thus the company would not have lost anything if I -did- find an illegal copy.
Nowdays, I don't copy software illegaly anyway. I don't think it is cool. What little commercial software I need or want (Loki games, linux distributions) I pay for. But that doesn't mean it's theft if I did.
If you cant figure this out, I have pity for you. Obviously you have no regard for other people or their efforts.
Argument to emotion? A demonstrably false claim followed by the claim that disagreeing implies a "no regard for other people"?
Tsk tsk.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making something for $1 and then selling it for $10... if people are willing to pay $10 for it. I also have nothing against making something for $1 and selling it for $10,000. Mainly because, you don't have to buy it. If you don't think the product in question is worth $10, then don't pay for it... but don't bemoan the fact that someone else is trying to make a living.
If their product is worth 10 dollars, than people with pay 10 dollars for it, regardless of how much it cost to produce. Cost of production is irrelevant, all that matters, in terms of pricing, is how much it's worth to consumers.
Communist.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a detail, but I think you got it back to front. Its more like:
If people will pay 10 dollars it, it's worth 10 dollars
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not obligated to use an Operating System (unlike food), so if the cost for Microsoft software upsets you unduly, simply don't purchase it. Find an alternative or choose not to use computer software at all. They haven't mandated you give them money, all they've done is offered a product/service for a price... you make the decision if their price is worth your money or not.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't pay *to* use it. That is not the service that the *author* provides, that is the service the software provides.
If software providers want to get paid and not rely on government monopolies over information, they have to get paid for the *creation* of software (which is scarce), not the redistribution of it (which is only scarce due to government-sponsored monopolies, modulo the cost of serving information over a peer to peer network, i.e., essentially nothing).
Fake libertarians, beware. Copyright and patent are government-imposed monopolies which disrupt the free market. Stick to your ideals.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't begrudge the mechanic who buys a part for $20 and charges me $100 plus the $15/hr to put it in. I either don't have the knowledge or don't want to do it, so I pay for the process to be done for me.
What you are confusing the issue with here is the anominity that the internet provides people for now. People are willing to steal software because nobody is being punished for the fact. Once things get a little more high profile in the college raids and such, people will become less likely to take what's not thiers. At minimum they will contemplate it before they take it.
As for your equation with disproportionate distribution of profit over benefit of products, I would have to say that this is ludicrous. How many non-geek people do you know that are power users of any software. The bottom line on this is that the majority of the people using computers don't have the first clue about what they want to do. They have heard there is free porn and games online so they jump in that direction. They don't really expect much out of the programs that they use and those programs really do alot more than most people ever need. Your comment is basicly unfounded.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:2)
By your logic here, if software costs anything, it should not be above a dollar. To take to funny logic futher, to an extream if you will, then medical care shouldn't cost more than a buck either, or auto insurance, or homes, books, or all the food that I could eat. People shouldn't be allowed to profit from their abilities or specialized skills.
Accually books are a good example to use. A good book takes just as long to write as a good program. It too has a high RD value so to speak of. The first copy of that book to be published costs a lot of money. After that, each copy is dirt cheap.
Guess what? You still have to pay the publisher, the press people, shippers, paper suppliers, truck repair people, gas, electric bills, press repair people, insurance, etc, etc, etc, from the sales of that book.
Any you still have the right to go to the library and read a copy for free (try it out if you will), and when you are done with it or the due date is up, you return it (stop using the program).
Simple, if you use it you should pay for it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but if you are using it it benefits you. If you don't need all of Office you can buy the piece or pieces you need. It is not a valid excuse to pirate it because you only need it every other Thursday or because; in this case as example; its evil Microsoft.
"The balance still has to be struck somewhere, but with the fact that there are so many who are growing disproportionately richer selling software, and with most consumers only receiving marginal benefits from their applications, we begin to realize that there is something definitely wrong with this equation. "
Uh, the balance is that if you need to use it you should pay to do so. Just because you don't need it all, or not all of the time does not justify depriving someone else of their profit from their work and ideas. Consumers receive FULL BENEFIT from the products they buy IF it does what they want.
Your just running the same old tired lines that pirates use everyday to justify their OWN greed and selfishness. Your mantra is one that of "I will take what I want and screw you". People pirate software because its easy not to get caught... just like the loudmouth flamer in the chatroom who only exists because of the anonymous nature of the net the software pirate is just another example of the spineless twits that ruin the system for the rest of us.
Pirates lead to over regulation, overly silly EULA's, Product Activation, CD-KEYS, and all other sorts of incovenience. They provide the "evil software" companies all the excuse they ever need.
Re:Why not use pirated software? (Score:3, Interesting)
So Ambrosia can set up schemes to ID licensing scofflaws, but seems to have no problem creating and selling a product designed to violate the copyright (at least in the DMCA sense, if not in the traditional fair-use sense) of Hollywood movies. Why hasn't DOJ gone after them for violating DMCA when the product is clearly just as in violation as DeCSS? Personally I think fair-use trumps DMCA, but current law makes selling such as product just as illegal as failing to register shareware, or using pirated codes to register it. They need to make up their mind whether they believe infromation should be free, or whther we need the government to come in and enforce copyright laws.
Morality in valuation? (Score:3, Insightful)
So if value is to be based on cost, where does cost come from when you're not simply reselling a purchased good? How much should my time be worth? If I had to pull million-year-old minerals out of the earth, how much should they be worth?
And this issue, pricing, is a matter of morality? Perhaps when people are dying at the feet of profiteers (e.g. AIDS medications in poor countries), but in the real day-to-day exchanges of goods and services, your "morality" is so high up in the ivory tower as to leave the most basic issues of economics (e.g. resource scarcity) unresolved.
<bart
Is this really suprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me explain. If I want to pay a $ price on my credit-card, I have to pay an extortionate amount for currency conversion. Added to the fact that credit card payments necessitate a minimum charge etc. Add to that price discrepancies (it cost 0.75 for a can of Coke in my country - cross the border you pay more, cross the Ocean you pay less)
I think, we need to return to a barter system to get round these currency problems. An Amazon-esque wishlist is nice start, but what about an alternate internet currency supported by the big players? Say, "Amazon-Bucks"? Where I can convert my currency into AB which I can "wire" to a developer which he can exchange either for goods or currency.
Ya... talking off the top of my head AND out of my arse... great skill that.
Re:Is this really suprising? (Score:3, Funny)
And to make matters worse lately every coke I buy calls me a looser or at least a "sorry not a winner". I wish I could pirate cokes as easily as I could pirate software.
Re:Is this really suprising? (Score:2)
Get a better credit card. When I buy stuff in US $ or UK pounds (my credit card is in Canadian $) I pay currency conversion rate of about 2.5% -- which is no more, and possibly even less than the rate which I pay to convert cash.
the problem is the cost (Score:5, Interesting)
But personally I find the real problem is the cost of shareware. Most of it is just priced to high. As an example; running osx on my ibook, I downloaded a search enhancement called "watson" the other day. It essentially adds more search function with a osx skin. Stuff like movie times and the like. I would have bought the app for 5-10 bucks, but the shareware fee is 30 bucks. You start adding up 30 bucks a pop for shareware and it gets real expensive. 5 or 10, no problem. I'm there. The high cost of a shareware app like this leads to piracy. After all is the functionality of one click to hollywood.com worth 30 bucks... I don't think so.
Re:the problem is the cost (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the problem is the cost (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't get me going.
Re:the problem is the cost (Score:3, Informative)
If you have a Mac, download it and you can try it free for 15 days. I think you'll find it has many more features than comparable products.
Personally, I find the strength of shareware is that someone finds a need, writes a product to solve the problem, and charges just what's necessary to cover his costs. Compared to Microsoft or Adobe bloatware, shareware can meet your needs while staying on a budget.
Of course, you need to decide whether the functionality is worth the cost to you. If it's not, then all we ask is you don't use the software. It's that simple.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc
They deserve better. (Score:2)
Back in 1995, Apeiron [ambrosiasw.com] was my favorite game for a little while. Well worth $15 for all the hours of fun it gave me. Better than the original "Centipede" by far
Shareware, Prices of Commercial Software (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the big trick is to lower software costs. More than any other product, software has the ability to be distributed at close to zero cost (download from the 'net). Yet most popular software package distributeds online, tend to be sold at the same pricing levels as software that has been mastered, burnt to CD, manuals printed, boxes made, and shipped through multiple levels of distribution, each marking it up.
If things were 1/4 the price, I'm sure piracy would be a lot lower. Most people wouldn't bother.
If I wanted to get a copy of a classic movie on VHS, I wouldn't bother renting the tape and copying it, I'd just buy it for $7.95. DVD's are starting to get to that point, too (although new releases are still nuts).
-me
Bother to do what? (Score:2)
Besides, it's a twofold thing... unless the product really needs to connect to Internet to work, I wouldn't accept it trying to connect anywhere, I'd stop it dead in my firewall. If they hadn't warned me in advance that an Internet connection was required I'd want my money back, if they had I wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
Kjella
Re:Shareware, Prices of Commercial Software (Score:5, Insightful)
there are only a few ways to fix this is. one would be to implement the product activation stuff mentioned in other posts. another would be to actively police the software, as MS does with windows.
the latter option gets the company bad press. the former is something of a privacy invasion issue unless it's done as the result of a button click, and even then doesn't get the people that aren't on-line when they install the software or (for whatever reason) don't go on-line by choice.
the only one i've seen work in a way for which i can't see a hiccup is the safedisk thing i've seen with many games (Diablo II, Black & White, etc.). the disk is copyable, but the registration code won't work with a copied disk. I don't know how it works, and yes I do realize that this can be gotten around, but most people won't go to that level of trouble (I'm assuming) because then it's actually easier to pay for the software than get around the protection (see paragraph one). this may make fair-use backups very difficult, but most people won't go to that trouble, and I'm sure the company would be willing to send you replacement disks if you sent them the original (now-bad) CDs.
i'm no expert; there are probably other ways of protecting against piracy. but actually protecting the company without stepping on users toes is really hard.
weylin
Re:Shareware, Prices of Commercial Software (Score:3, Insightful)
For a smalltime shareware producer that distributes programs over the internet, something like safedisk which is dependent on the media isn't really fesible.
The parent post to yours makes the analogy of not copying VHS tapes because it's easier to go buy it. I would argue that it's more work to get in my car, drive to best buy or wherever, deal with the lines of people, annoying salepeople, and parking lot nightmares than it is to submit a form over the internet. The biggest difference is, people are used to going into stores and buying things. They've done it so many times they're used to it, it's brainless for them, and so no big deal.
It's a fight against a just plain awful mindset here. The feeling among a lot of the populace that software piracy isn't theft because it doesn't cause the producers any profit is silly. It's based upon some weird notion that everyone has an inherent right to whatever software they want, whether they can pay for it or not.
Speaking as a long time mac guy, the shareware community that I've seen has produced some amazingly high quality software. Any need that they feel to cripple their work in order to make money off of it has been caused by the users and their selfishness. The populace has noone to blame but themselves. It's just another example of a society that wants increasingly more, but is willing to give increasingly less.
Re:Shareware, Prices of Commercial Software (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes you are correct, A bulk of the product's costs is the packaging. Back in 1992 I wrote a VB app (stop throwing those rocks! I hadn't discovered Linux yet!) that was a Karate Studio management system. I spent countless hours making and testing it. and then I started to look into packaging. I was going to have to sell my software for $59.95 to cover the packaging and $10.00 for my profit. Yes, you read that right... It was going to cost about $49.95 per box, that was the cardboard,offset 3 color ptinting, having the 5 floppies made, the 3 color labels printed, and a 10 page manual, then shrinkwrapped. This was for a small run of 1000 units.
I gave up. there was no way I was going to lay that kind of money on the line in hopes of sales. I basically sold it to my beta-testers and called it done. I made about $600.00 on the project, and I was happy for that, as I learned alot about datatbases and User Interface Design.. (Tip: if you are dealing with non-computer types, make it look like AOL's system... it's a prime example on how to make it easy for an idiot to use.)
If I was able to set up a website and offer it for download? $14.00 a download ($10.00 profit, $4.00 for web and bandwidth costs) I would have made more money, had many more users.
yes, If I download Q3 instead of buying it, it should cost less than $49.95...
but remember, this is a common sense approach.. No publisher would dare take that route because of it.
Re:Shareware, Prices of Commercial Software (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the point. Even those who see nothing morally wrong with copying software (which in general I do), who claim that `no-one suffers', should see that the future market may suffer even if the present one doesn't.
It's the same for copying music, or any other IP. The cost of reproduction may be marginal; but if the cost of production isn't, people need to pay to provide an incentive for it to be created in the first place.
Re:Shareware, Prices of Commercial Software (Score:4, Informative)
No, me and my family like to eat. People only get my software now when they pay in advance, or may me rates to develop it. No more shareware.
I agree; this wasn't a simple thing, though; it was a lightweight VT-100 compliant, background terminal emulator for DOS (you remember TSR's?) It let you pop it up when you needed it, did x/ymodem transfers in the background, and was small. (Kind of modelled after "mirror", which went in the background, but took up a hundred K or so.) Was very handy in it's day, and reasonably widely used.
-me
Do I Pay for Your Shareware? (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of shareware isn't worth a pinch of shit. For some reason, highschoolers learning VB think the little utility they whipped up in class is actually worth $40.
Other shareware is easily replaced with Free software (eg. you'd have to be a real MS/IBM fanboy to buy 4DOS/4NT/4OS2 rather than use Bash).
Much of the remainder might be merely a good idea, something I didn't know I needed. Unless it's a large project, I'll simply write my own version (hey, imagine that, another geek knows how to code! And I'll be keeping my $39.95 too, thanks), written exactly how I like it.
Re:Do I Pay for Your Shareware? (Score:3, Interesting)
I use 4DOS (actually Take Command/32) on Windows 2000 because every port of bash that I've found for it drives me batshit. Maybe you can tolerate a Unix shell in an utterly alien (i.e., non-Unix) environment, but in my experience 4DOS simply works better in Windows. A lot better.
While this is subjective, don't believe that it's because I'm an "MS/IBM fanboy"; my current job is programming on FreeBSD and I've been using Linux since the days SLS was the dominant distribution (being one of, I think, three?). Before that I was a webmaster, though, and while the web server was Apache on Solaris, my workstation was Windows NT, and all the web maintenance scripts were done in Take Command. There are some things in 4DOS--most often the date ranges for commands that operate on multiple files--that I dearly miss in Unix shells.
I'm honest, but am I in the minority here? (Score:5, Interesting)
I also purchased every game that Loki ever released, and have bought copies of RedHat, Caldera, and Cygwin (when it was sold in stores) to use on machines at work.
I was raised to be honest. You don't take what you don't pay for. If I don't like the price for something, I don't buy it. I want to play Return to Castle Wolfenstein, but I'm not about to pay $55 for a game, so I'll wait until the price drops. If it takes a year, so what? That's about how long I waited until Icewind Dalebecame reasonably priced.
As far as I'm concerned software pirates are in the same class of people who shoplift, leave restaurants without paying, or drive off from a gas station without paying.
I'm curious about the people who don't pay for software. What's the rationale? I can you justify that kind of behavior?
Re:I'm honest, but am I in the minority here? (Score:4, Interesting)
With those things you have prevented them from selling their stuff to someone else and therefore activly cost them money. With software "theft" you have not deprived them of the ability to sell as many copies as they like. You've not cost them any money at all. That's wh the term "theft" is wrong here.
That's the difference. Whether you think that it's equally bad is a matter of opinion only.
Re:I'm honest, but am I in the minority here? (Score:3, Interesting)
And if you're a member of that middle group, it all comes down to whether you think that it's the same morality to deprive someone of making X dollars, as to take away X dollars from them. Either way they're down X dollars, so rationally it's hard to argue that they're different, but it is to a lot of people.
Re:Wrong, Wrong, RIGHT!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
As p approaches u, you get the same effect as one person stealing a six-month long massage.
Re:I'm honest, but am I in the minority here? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about choice (Score:2)
p.s. plese don't flame me cause i use windows, i'm learning my linux and getting pretty good at it. Just using WWinamp as an example.;)
Yes I do (Score:2)
As soon as you consider Windows and Office non-free it is easy to convice yourself to use something else. Many people I know likes and uses Windows and Office all the time but they have never, ever paid full price for it.
On the other hand, when it comes to Windows, MS charges you for what should be free upgrades. And when you buy a laptop with Windows 98 and the installation tools are on a special partition, and you feel like trying Solaris on it - how the hell do you get Windows 98 back in a legal way
Re:Yes I do (Score:2)
As soon as you consider Windows and Office non-free it is easy to convice yourself to use something else.
Until it comes to actually using the alternatives. I just switched back (again) to Windows 2000 after spending several months using Linux. Ignoring (painfully) all the lack of hardware support, the additional bugs, the lack of support for mozilla on certain webpages, the general crappiness of netscape and mozilla, the difficulty in installing software, etc, I finally reached the breaking point with a certain java applet I use regularly which crashes every half hour on linux and almost never on Win2K.
Re:Yes I do (Score:2)
Re:Yes I do (Score:2)
Or maybe they'd just "steal" it. Many people who dreamed about going the speed limit to work every day would start taking mass transit. Most people who dreamed about paying use tax on items they purchased from Amazon.com would just go to Barnes and Noble.
You have three choices. Use Linux, use Windows and pay $whatever, or use Windows and face a 1 in 1 billion chance of faces statutory damages of $750-$150,000 and a 1 in 100 trillion chance of not more than 1 year in prison. I leave the rational choice as an exercise for the reader.
I've paid for my Windows, but that's just cause it happens to have came with a computerr that I bought.
Dark future for shareware in OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
A long time ago, I used the shareware program StuffitLite on my Mac Classic II (I did not pay for it). Now I realise that those compression utilities for Mac usually are based on free software. Since tha Mac culture was to pay for software it did make sense to use open cod/algorithms, packet it for the Mac and sell it as shareware. In todays UNIX culture the same tools are available for free.
Cost has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Interesting)
This argument that the cost of the shareware is too high is just plain garbage. I used to write applications to manage my systems. One was a virus utility (back in the day...whew I feel old) and another was a CD Database system with search and catalog functions. They were nifty utilities, so I thought I would throw them out to the arena. I don't take a whole lot of worth in my code, so I decided I just wanted to see what the use would be.
I priced each registration at $1.00.
The software was fully functional, although when the Virus scanner ran it displayed a banner to the user with my tags on it, and the CD would only search the first 100 discs (not files, Discs) before displaying a banner.
Out of the 1000 downloads, I received ONE registration. Out of the Year I updated the software, I received one registration.
Yet I saw the programs used on tens of dozens of systems. I even downloaded a "crack" that extended the use of the catalog program to 150 discs *Memory limit and it degraded performance horribly*
So this argument of "If it was *insert low price here* I would PAY for it is just talk. If the software is used, and you like using it, you will pay for it. If you don't want to pay for the use of it, yet you like using it, you will find a way around it. Plain & Simple.
$1.00 =/= $1.00 (Score:2)
No, it's not. Actually, paying $1.00 for a piece of software is not the same as plunking 4 quarters into a coke machine. If indeed this was back in the day, it would probably be quite a pain to send you a dollar. Envelope, stamp, etc..
Case in point: One of my favorite pieces of software when I was young was "postcardware" -- $0.00 registration fee. I never got around to registering it, though, and that's because the cost is actually NOT zero.
Now, if today my software came with a button that allowed me to register my software with a dollar donation, online without any work (just charging my credit card), then that would make registration more likely.
But anyway, the idea of paying for a copy of software is pretty weird to me, and I don't think that model will last very long. I say shareware (and soon, commercial software) is dead.
Re:Cost has nothing to do with it (Score:2)
Better would have been in the $5-$20 range - depending on how useful the programs were. A lot of shareware back in those days were priced, I think, in the $10 to $30 range.
For poor students who don't have any money to spend, $30 is a LOT of money.
Problems with simple methodology they use (Score:2, Interesting)
Out of the 107 "pirated" how many were:
1. user error (mistyped)
2. user dupe - a backup copy (allowed by law or license - one a work one at home)
3. "real" pirates, but whom would never have paid for it to begin with? (i.e. not a lost sale)
I am willing to bet that once you wash those out and arrive at the real "losses", the number will be much smaller.
It depends, (Score:2)
In the world of Windows shareware, there is too much junk, and too many greedy people who wants money for nothing. Which is why I love *BSD/Linux so much. It takes me back to the old BBS days where you still could get good software for you PC for free. If I should mention a good program the is free for personal use on the Windows platform it must be Daemon Tools [daemon-tools.com].
I think I buy about 2 or 3 programs every year.
One must is that they use some form of online payment that doesn't look too fishy. There are a couple of site that deals with payment for "kitchen programmers" so they won't have to establish a secure payment system themself. A good idea.
Shareware had its day, its over..... (Score:3, Informative)
That saidsome of this crap being peddeled as "Shareware" couldnt be farther from Shareware as I remeber it from about 1982-1994 or so. Time limited software isnt shareware, its just that time limited demo's. Feature limited software is just that , feature limited software demo's . Shareware WAS a complete functioning game or program, that if you liked were supposed to do 2 things, Share it , (this was to spread the program and increase popularity), and Pay for it if you liked it.
The people using computers arent the same as they were , they were appreciative of other programmers efforts, I had MANY friends that although they pirated software on a regular basis , WOULD pay for certain pieces of software, the Original Castle Wolfenstien was one.
Times have changed. Software revenues must too, some things I GPL, some I dont , and sell , I have a package thats sold over the last 4 years about 50 copies at over 1000 each. Its a revenue source, I need. so dont blast me with I should open source it. BUT it contains, what has so far benn an unbreakable product registration scheme. Funny part is I wrote it to check and log , etc. I have only had one person attemt to crack it, and ten only by regedits, etc. They eventually bought it. Its a web app, and pretty useless without connectivity, SO i can prety much guarentee the WILL be online to use it , hence the ability to contact the server running my reg app.
This is Dumb. (Score:2)
Trying to make money off selling (rather than developing) software may be a thing of the past -- even MS is moving towards a services-based model. Shareware authors, if you are not doing it for fun, you are wasting your time!
fair exchange (Score:2)
It is slippery ground because of the need for legitimate fair exchange between folks. The problem comes when one side says that fair exchange means "All your base are belong to us"
This is where you find people objecting to MS, and justifying piracy. The fact that MS also has engaged in a sort of a legalized piracy is also part of the trap.
and so you get the system being supported by decent folks trying to do the right thing. No one likes the idea that they are getting ripped off, customer or company. I have no problem letting someone make a fair markup on something. But don't try to play me for a fool.
Leave the job of making me look silly to me. I can do that well enough as it is ;-)
Reasons for Bypassing Protection (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The protected version was crippled and I couldn't truly try all the features before buying.
2. The trial period was just too short
After I could really try all features for a useful evaluation period I bought the ones that proved useful and scrapped the others to try something else.
Proxy servers are a good example. I tried about 3 before I decided on Fortech's Proxy+. When I decided it was worth it I bought two 10 user licenses. After I outgrew these I upgraded one to the unlimited license. Fortech's trial only allowed 2 users which wasn't all that bad, but I really needed to see how it worked under the heavier loads I'd be putting it under since my bandwidth is limited (3 bonded 56k dialups)
Another good example is VMWare Workstation. In the 30 day trial I was unable to convince the boss how useful this program was. After I was able to run it for 5 months I had finally shown him enough examples of it's usefullness that he not only bought me a $299 license, he also bought himself one.
I've gone through similar things and finally paid for programs like:
CuteFTP, ZMud, WinZip, and an assortment of games.
Re:Reasons for Bypassing Protection (Score:4, Insightful)
Your example eventually worked out well for the companies in question, but it's just not possible to say that your behaviour's OK without providing the excuse to every pirate that "Oh, I've just been evaluating the software for the last 6.5 years". You end up with an unworkable know-it-when-I-see-it situation.
The companies want to sell the software to you, you should make them work for it, not create extra work for yourself. If they're not co-operative, take this as a sign of how much they're eager to win your custom and move on.
I write shareware - it has a 30 day trial period. If someone mails and asks, this can happily be extended to 60 or 90 days. No features are crippled during the trial. If the people don't ask, how am I to tell the difference between them and a pirate?
Ambrosia are not Microsoft... (Score:2)
1. It makes it impossible to install Windows on more than 1 Computer, even if you own more than 1 computer..... Ambrosias scheme allows you to install on as many personal systems as you like, however, if you distribute the code publicly (over the internet), then you will loose your shareware licence when the code is discovered to be Pirate. This is an active deterrent to persuade you not to redistribute their shareware unlock code!
2. If you need to reinstall a million times, then you can get a renewed code a million times.. (Though it would probably cause suspicion within Ambrosia). Try activating M$'s products more than a few times, and that's it.
Tony
Moral Imperatives... (Score:2)
I've paid for several shareware packages over the years, but I know I'm in the minority. I've owned a WinZip site license since --- oh, I think version 4.1. And last year I licensed NTI CD_Maker, when I needed a Win2K program for my CD burner.
Every company I've worked at (consultant or otherwise) has used shareware without paying for it. Making an issue of this is a waste of time; I get looked at as some moralistic annoyance, because the managers and accountants see shareware authors as naive fools who "give" away stuff.
Did you pay for netscape? Sucker (Score:2)
Do you even have to pay for shareware? (Score:2)
I thought shrink-wrap licenses were not enforcible in all states. If the software can be downloaded, and you have obtained a copy legally, aren't you legally allowed to use (and even sell) the copy which you have legally obtained, forever?
Piracy as a marketing tool (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not a millionaire (Score:2, Insightful)
... and once again copyright infringement vs theft (Score:2)
And exactly the value the customers see in a paid version over a pirated version reflects the sales and the revenue. Of course there's a value in ethical and legal sense of having a paid product, but the ethical value seems small, and the legal value exists almost only for corportations.
Truth is, most people wouldn't make such a big deal about it if they knew they all were paying. I wouldn't mind paying X$ for a Ferrari, but not if all my friends got themselves one for free. But reality is, in software almost anything is for free, if you want to.
Kjella
Honor-ware doesn't work (Score:4, Insightful)
So there is a significant free-rider problem here that can't be ignored... (this is the problem with honor-system and similar payment schemes - there are too many freeloaders out there =)
I write Mac shareware (Score:4, Interesting)
I wrote an app called MacBattleChat. It was a very popular app amongst Mac gamers, since it was the only one of its kind at the time. My "registration system" was an "I paid" checkbox. I got less than 10 registrations, but I could go on battle.net in the mac channel and see a dozen clients running at any given time.
I learned my lesson. I added a serial number and "nag screen" system to DropImage and PortSniffer. To this date I've had over 400 registrations of DropImage, and over 50 PortSniffer registrations.
I will say that there are pirate serial numbers in Cracks & Numbers, but I get enough registrations that I don't care. The shareware payments cover my IDE and development costs and then some. I'm not going to get rich with my shareware business, but it's not as bad as the Ambrosia guys make it out to be. Maybe it's because my shareware is actually affordable.
The view from both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are what I see as the general problem that leds to most shareware being cracked:
Most shareware is _horribly_ overpriced. Writing 200 lines in VB does not constitute $30. Folks would benefit more if they sold those little 200 line programs for next to nothing ($1).
The fact of the matter is that most people do not want to give their credit card to fifty million different websites just to get some silly software. There is no chance in hell that most people will send checks through the mail.
Whenever you sell a product in the real world, you are forced to hold it to certain standards. Most shareware has clauses though to exempt it from any warranty claims. Many shareware authors absolutely refuse to take the time to offer support too.
Software gets cracked not generally because of a public demand for it to be cracked, but rather because it presents a challenge for a potential cracker. There is one way to make sure that your software is not cracked, just don't release it! Teaser releases (i.e. time limited demo's) are just wrong and will not work. Besides, the strongest selling mechanism is novelity so why would one allow the novelity to fade prior to charging for the product? It just doesn't make any sense.
The best model to sell shareware through is by release a community edition and standard edition. The standard edition has to contain significantly more features and it needs to come with good support.
Most shareware just generally lacks any sense of quality. I was always suprised that a website like TuCows that does software rating never integrated a payment system so that folks could have a TuCows account and surf for 5 cows only and then buy software directly.
Piracy explained (Score:3, Insightful)
otherwise known as:
"'free' as in 'free beer'(once you pick the lock at the package store)"
see also:
piracy and web design [virtualsurreality.com]
There is plenty of free software [nonags.com], free graphics [unmondo.com], and other free resources [virtualsurreality.com]. But rather than use Strata 3d base, people would prefer to pirate Maya. Rather than using Gimp, people would prefer to pirate Photoshop. Rather than using Linux, people would prefer to pirate Windows? Why? Because piracy allows people to set their own price to zero and juistify it to themselves. A free market is based on the buyer and seller agreeing on a price. Piracy, by it's refusal to even include the seller in the conversation, is death to a free market economy. This reduces the number of sellers wishing to participate, and therefore the amount of goods available. It could be argued that piracy helps makes Microsoft a monopoly. Few people can afford to create competing products and not get paid for their efforts.
Extreme Optimist Ware (Score:3, Funny)
Having said that I have registered shareware that I was a regular user of (most notably Remote Access BBS software), but then I discovered Unix and opensource software.
Remember PC-Write? (Score:3, Interesting)
It had this neat feature - when you bought and registered it, you got this product code you typed in to the (fully functional!) shareware version.
If you shared that, when other people registered the software with your code on it, YOU GOT PAID. Sort of like MLM...
It was NORMAL to get the full purchase price of the software back and then some if you spread it far and wide...
I left that software on hundreds of computers....
-Ben
Casual copying seems more common with pros (Score:3, Insightful)
People who use computers for graphics design or sound editing (or any other application software oriented field) tend to need a good set of software.
My siblings, as an example, will come to the conclusion that they need some kind of software. Their purchasing process goes something like this:
Definitely a case where a company loses a sale if a freely available, illegal copy exists.
Of course, you can't sum up all illegal copying this way. A good sum of it is teenagers getting thrilled over having the latest 3D Studio. A huge chunk is people who just can't afford it/access it otherwise, and will pay software "pirates" a nominal fee to have it provided (look at cable piracy overseas). Just some are people looking to save their money.
The interesting thing we all know about software is that it replicates so easily. Unlike most product models, software is not a scarce resource--developer time is, but the end product is not.
Early computer vendors weren't quite as stupid when they said that there was no money in software products. Look at the classifieds for computer programers. 95% of the job listings are to work on custom systems rather than software products.
Successful software product companies are rare (like Microsoft), and many of them have to treat software more like a resource to be licensed, or a service provided, than a product. A very small number of their sales comes from people purchasing retail software.
With something like the internet, if your work can be cloned easily, you're always going to face these problems. Software developers and musicians face the same challenge.
Perhaps one day they will be paid by hardware manufacturers instead of end-users? Perhaps musicians will get a fraction of a cent whenever someone sells a set of speakers? Meh, my head hurts.
This real reason shareware isn't bought (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets take a look at some often used applications:
WinZip: $29
CuteFTP: $39.95
mIRC: $20
WinRAR: $29
CustomizerXP: $24
CDRWin: $39
These are all shareware applications I have installed on my computer. Some of them are going to be removed real soon because they are expiring. These prices do NOT include any kind of media, manuals, box, etc. All you get is to download and use the software. So why are they priced to rival boxed media?
If I were to buy all 6 programs it would cost: $180.95 USD. I live in Canada, that translates to: $253.33 CAD for 6 applications with no media!
Shareware companies need to rethink their pricing. If these applications cost $10-$20 I would buy them. They certainly shouldn't be priced comperable to retail software I can find in the store if I don't even get an original CD.
$40 for an FTP client, $30 for an archiver, ludicrous..
-- iCEBaLM
More interesting - this link from Ambrosia Article (Score:3, Informative)
http://hackvan.com/pub/stig/articles/why-do-peo
Here, if you believe all you read, a shareware author created a scheme in a newly released app in order for it to act as "nagware" in 50% of its installs and "crippleware" on the other half, even if the app was uninstalled and reinstalled.
The results were that people were approximately 5 times more likely to register the crippleware than the nagware.
> Assuming that if all copies had been restricted the monthly
> registration count would have risen by the difference between the
> "PoNC" and "Restricted " figures total sales, there has
> effectively been a loss in sales of 685 copies, for a value of
> $17125, which I guess is what the experiment cost to perform.
Though the price of shareware might seem too high, often the price of having shareware that doesn't work due to a crippling routine is even higher.
Slashdot posters just go from bad to worse..... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am reminded of a quote by the philosopher Ian Kilmister.
Legions of the morally bankrupt who can rationalise the theft of someone elses work through such self indulgent mendacity as or or As if that makes it alrighty then.
For a community is so vocal when it comes to screaming from the rooftops about breaches of the alleged rights contained with the GPL. Common decency & any notion of self respect would mandate that you defend the rights of others also, by paying for what you use.
Here ends todays lesson in personal ethics 101.
Curmudgeon
I used to (pay my shareware) (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem I ran into was exactly this: support. It's fairly easy to write an app for yourself (scratching your itch), figure out that you could make a few bucks out of it because other people like you need this app, package an app and post it on the web then ask $10 for it. The problem is being up to the level of providing long time support.
After spending about $200 in shareware, I got into the problem of running some of these in new environments (Windows mostly, god forbids me) and the shareware to crash beautifully because of some DLL (D HELL HELL.) Contacting the people who develop the system has been a cold and hot experience. Some of them were gone, unavailable. I even got on a spam list after a few mails to a couple of them.
So when the register now pops up in a dialog these days, I tend to deny the offer even if it takes me 10 secs to be able to use the app.
PPA, the girl next door.
Federal free software grants instead of shareware. (Score:3)
Corporations could still be charged to use the software in a profit-driven environment, citizens not trying to make a buck would get the software at no cost, and the developer would get paid for out-of-pocket development costs and could make enough to make a living (as many artists working with NEA do, just on grants).
Swarm the gangplanks, I'm a pirate.. sort of. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't entirely know my purpose in posting right now, because I'm not going to change any minds, but I personally feel that this approach is a responsible one. Realistically, I haven't caused any company to lose money, because anything I might have pirated would have been something I would have paid for.. and, in a few cases, I've even gone out the next day to buy things that I've downloaded not so legally, rather than just delete them the second day as I normally do.
Yah I pay, from time to time. (Score:3, Interesting)
I then play the full version.
If I like it I pay the money for it.
Often times I will first submit bug reports and see how the author responds to them. If I get a positive response, they get my money. If said bug reports are just ignored, the program is deleted.
I have had a few authors actualy custom make EXE patchs for me, suffice to say they got their money the next day.
If I product is worth is, sure I'll pay. Hell I will also yell at the users who don't pay.
Piracy may not be as bad as companies claim. (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, piracy actually can help companies. Look at Microsoft.
Would Microsoft have such a huge monopoly position if it weren't for all the pirated copies of Windows and Office? Piracy allows them to perform dump their products onto the populace without legal responsibility. It solidifies their desktop dominance for the future. So they "lose" a few hundred dollars to Joe Sixpack, money that they probably would never have got anyway, but now they know they'll continue making millions more in years to come. (Yes, yes, we all hate Microsoft, so piracy must be a bad thing!)
Look at [name a developer of popular 3D modelling software here]. These companies get it; they don't care about piracy; they care about increasing their market. They want people to be versed with their tools, which have high learning curves, and to go into industry using them. Let industry pay for the licenses.
This is tough (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm nowhere near rich, I've got debts up the colon, but I found the money to pay these authors for their passionate work. The justification probably isn't worth squat, but being an occasional shareware producer myself, I find satisfaction in knowing that my money is going straight to the person who slaved over the product, instead of being absorbed by a dozen different departments of a large corporation.
Let's take everyone's favorite example: Windows XP. I buy the box at Future Shop, 300$. FS keeps its cut, say 20%. Of the 240$ left, another 25% goes to the distributor. 190$ goes to Microsoft, which then puts it in the bank since its employees are salaried and don't receive royalties.
Now what if I took that 300$ and bought a bunch of shareware titles ? It will indeed make a difference, not to the bank, not to the IRS, but to the creators of the software, the ones who did the real work. Now THAT is a good feeling. It's like the difference between going to McDonalds or eating at a chipwagon. To your own wallet the result is the same, but at the receiving end you will make a big difference in helping the small guys.
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
I didn't pay for any of it either.
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't that read... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can here the cries of foul clear across the Internet. "How dare they verify the information I sent before giving me a new working key that I so justly deserve when I elect to attempt to renew a pirated key!!"
Modded down by the man.
WinZip - Mod Parent Up (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the license agreement, 30 Days then you need to register. This software is installed on almost every home (and office) PC in the world. I'm pretty sure it actually ships with Dell & Gateway computers.
Our department recently purchased licenses, but the rest of the company continues to click the agree button 3 years after installing it.
Makes you wonder, what would happen if they disabled it and required registration after 30 days?
Re:shareware (Score:2)
Your blind acceptance of 'reality' doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's reasonable to expect people to use the software without paying. That doesn't make it right, or even totally acceptable. That doesn't mean Ambrosia should just bend over and let these software pirates have their way with them.
Your solution is for him to shut up or stop writing. That's the stupidest thing ever. You don't get anywhere by giving up.
Ambrosia isn't really going after crackers or serials or anything. They're just trying to make casual piracy a little more difficult. That sounds stupid when it's a big company like Microsoft does it, because it doesn't stop the bigtime pirates. But I think Ambrosia knows that there aren't factories in china pressing hundreds of CD's of Escape Velocity every hour.
The article basically implies that it has been possible to make a living off of writing quality shareware. And it would appear that as the internet and the use of computers grows worldwide, the profit from shareware should grow as well. But that amount of people registering isn't scaling with the amount of use of the programs. There's something wrong with that. It's a flaw in the mindset of the software using public. And because of that flaw, the people are pushing developers to release crippleware in a hope to make some money off of their time and energy.