NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/applications/3073

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 7.5 KB

Path: cnn.Princeton.EDU!user
From: [e-mail] (Tomoharu Nishino)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.newton.misc,comp.sys.amiga.applications
Subject: Re: Users are selfish Was Re: crippled software
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 18:19:47 -0500
Organization: Princeton University
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]>  <4hllsv$[e-mail]>    <4hmvq7$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tnishino.remote.princeton.edu

In article <[e-mail]>,
Aristophanes <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I cannot resist the urge to jump in here after following this post for
>awhile.
>
>One caveat: I don't and never will program.

I too find it irresistable to jump in here after reading this thread for a
while now.  And I too do not, and probably never will program (at least not
well enough to do anything worthwhile).

>I've always thought that the market determines the price for a product. If no
>one pays for shareware, be it crippled or other, then the price is not right,
>or the complexity of paying too difficult. If no one pays for Mah Jong, then
>that's because no one thought it was worth the money. If they REALLY wanted
>to pay, they could drop quarters in an arcade.

This is hogwash.  (Sorry...)  I agree that the market does determine the
price for a product.  I also agree that if no one pays for shareware, the
price is not right, or the complexity of paying to difficult.  HOWEVER, if
one feels that the price is not right, and one does not want to pay for it,
one can only do one thing -- NOT USE IT.  The only way that users of
sofware (or consumers in general) can ethically express their displeasure
at the price of a product is to not use it -- it DOES NOT allow them to
continue to use it and not pay for it.  If enough people refuse to use the
product, then the price will come down, assuming that the author wants more
people to use the product -- that is how the market determines the price of
a product, any product, be it shareware or otherwise.

>Not paying for shareware is not larceny. The cost of using that shareware is
>the cost of time in dealing with the crippling and pop-up reminders. That's
>the consumers choice. That's the peril of shareware.

This again is hogwash.  And let me give an example to illustrate my point.
Let's say that you steal something -- anything, a car, a VCR, a computer,
toaster oven, etc. etc.  But let's also say you were "unlucky" and the
thing you just stole turned out to be a lemon, and it didn't work quite
right.  Does that alter in anyway the initial fact that you stole the thing
to begin with?  The fact that you paid the "cost" (through inconvienience)
of dealing with the deficiencies of the product does not negate the fact
that you stole the product to begin with.  If I stole a car which had a
faulty transmission, and I had to live with the faulty transmission it does
not make it right for me to have stolen the car to begin with.  So why does
the fact that the user deals with the deficiencies -- i.e. the crippling
and pop-up reminders -- make it right to steal shareware?  This is NOT the
consumer's choice.  The ONLY choice that consumers can make is to pay for
something and use it, or NOT USE IT AT ALL.

>I'd like to know if crippled shareware is more profitable than freeware with
>an asked for donation. Anyone?

I don't have a ready answer for this, but I don't see why this is relevant.
 Whether or not crippled shareware turns out to be more or less profitable
than freeware with an asked for donation is not the end-users concern.  If
crippled shareware turns out to be less profitable to a programmer, then
that is his loss.  But being the provider of the software, he has every
right to decide how and in what form he is going to request compensation
for his work.  And as long as the programmer is interested in being more
profitable, the markets (meaning us users not using his software unless we
deem it to be worthwhile) will eventually ensure that he chooses the right
strategy.

>I'd also like to point out that some of the best "shareware" stuff I've seen
>are hacks and cracks.

Again, this is true.  But even hacks and cracks require work which the
author is justified in requesting compensation for.

>And, finally, I think that the real people who proit from shareware are those
>who pay the authors next-to-nothing for putting the stuff on CD-ROM's in
>gobs, and then charge a fortune via mail-order. That's a classic case of the
>middleman defeating the origins of the shareware concept.
>
>Sigh. I like much of the shareware I see. But the ONLY time I sent ayone any
>money.......it was returned due to change of address.
>
>Them's my opinions and experiences.

I think it is rather annoying that people feel justified in complaining
when others try to rightfully profit from their own work, and try to come
up with all sorts of reasons why their behavior -- i.e. not paying for
shareware, etc. -- is justified.  In the end, shareware is just like any
other software, if you like it, BUY IT.  If you don't, don't use it.

I think shareware is a great concept.  There are many commercial programs I
will NOT buy because I can't try them out first.  The ability to try before
you buy is a great way to make sure that you spend your money wisely.  Many
Newton Programmers, Ben, Hardy, etc. could probabaly just as easily get
their stuff commercially marketed through the numerous Newton software
houses that are popping up (e.g. Landware, Pelicanware, etc.).  In fact
that has happened to many Newton programs that started off as shareware
(the best example here is NewtCase).  I really wonder how many people
actually paid for NewtCase, even though it was by most counts one of the
most popular Newton packages.  I don't know how big a factor that was in
NewtCase going commercial, but I can imagine that it was a big factor.  If
people like Ben and Hardy choose to go that route, we would end up paying
twice as much as what these guys ask for now.  If we want people like them
to continue to produce great software, and make it available for trial
prior to purchase, then we should uphold our end of the bargain by paying
for those we like and not using those we feel are not worthwhile.  If
having a crippled demos make these guys feel more secure that they will
actually get paid for their work, and if that added sense of security
allows them to continue to provide shareware, then I'm all for crippled
demos -- it is certainly better than the alternative of no demo commercial
packages at double the price.  Personally, having a 30 day timeout really
forces me to think whether or not the program is worth whatever the
shareware fee is to me.  Besides, the many of the shareware authors are
trying to make it as painless as possible to pay for their stuff by using
unlock-passwords, and services like Kagi Shareware.

Just my two cents.

===========================================================================
Tomoharu Nishino                                     Department of Politics
[e-mail]                                 Princeton University
                    -----------------------------------
Knowledge is a polite word for dead but not buried imagination.
                                                             e. e. cummings
===========================================================================