NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/applications/3252

Text File | 1996-08-05 | 6.0 KB | 107 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications
Path: newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!hwcee!news
From: [e-mail] (Rod MacLean)
Subject: Re: Users are selfish Was Re: crippled software
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Administrator)
Organization: Dept of Computing and Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.5
References: <4hmvq7$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:55:08 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Tomoharu Nishino) writes:
>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.

Ballocks, the only way you can express your displeasure at the price of
something is to contact the author. If you simply ignore the program he
will say, ok 3 people have paid for it  - great. If you say "I would pay
but it is too expensive" then they will say hey, I wonder how many other
people would pay and possibly reduce the fee in the next version.

>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.

Wrong again. If someone gives you a car and then says "You can't use it
in the rain because it's got no wipers" you have every right to grumble.
You might buy wipers but if this was too difficult or expensive then you
would go by bus or buy a cheaper alternative like a bike.

> 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.

Okay, fair enough. But consider this. There are two almost identical
programs, one programmer wants $10 one wants an email. You live in Europe
and can't send $10 as easily as you could email. This might mean you
settle for second best. The author who only asked for email will also be
able to say 10,000 people use my software. The guy who wants $10 will
never know how many people use his software - his work could all have
been for nothing!

>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.

Quite right, but some things you can't buy.... and a $5 asking fee is too
much for a European. In terms of time if nothing else. You have to consider
bank charges, carriage, et.c. It *is* possible to pay, just really akward.
Not paying for shareware is justified if you don't use the program  but not
paying for crippleware is also justified and was the original point of this
thread afaik.

>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.

Do you ever read the computer press? If you got a free, but crippled word
processor you would think, "It hasn't got all that many features" and
even if you knew what you were getting when you registered you wouldn't
know how easy these functions were to use. You could get the full version
and the new features were practically unusable.

If, on the other hand you walk into a newsagents or library and read the
relevant pages of a magazine you will know straight away and not have to
spend much at all. They might even do some comparisons, which, lets face
it your average punter can't afford.

    Rod

--
 --------------------------------------------
| [e-mail]            | Rod told   |
| [e-mail]            | me to skin |
| [e-mail]         | to skin    |
| [e-mail]             | you alive! |
 --------------------------------------------