NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/applications/3963

Text File | 1996-08-05 | 7.1 KB | 148 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.newton.misc,comp.sys.amiga.applications
Path: netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!scala!news
From: [e-mail] (Dave Haynie)
Subject: Re: Users are selfish Was Re: crippled software
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet administrator)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 18:14:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dave Haynie)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <4hllsv$[e-mail]>     <4hmvq7$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4htpsr$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: gator
Organization: Scala Computer Television, US Research Center

In <[e-mail]>, Eugene Tan <[e-mail]> writes:
>Bryan Nystrom wrote:

>> [e-mail] (Jonathan Badger) wrote:

>>>The real question is *why* people insist on writing shareware.

>> To cut costs to the end user, increase profit margins to the
>> developer, and to allow the computing community to "try-before-you
>> buy".

Not every developer can afford the additional expense of going to a
full commercial route. There's more involved here than you might
think. If you go through a publisher, you, the author, get some
percentage of the gross profits, probably something in the 10%-25%
range. If that software goes into a store, the retailer pays about 50%
of the MSRP for the product. So on a US$100 product, the developer
may make US$5 per copy.

The main point of the commercial route is consumer contact. If your
package is in the stores, if there's advertising, etc. you may sell
substantially more copies than by other routes. You still have free
distribution channels for crippled demos.

Moving halfway to shareware, one can try direct sales. In this case,
your consumer contact is via advertising and crippled demos, there's
no in-store contact. On the plus side, there's no dealer markdown to
deal with, so even via a publisher, the profit-per-copy for the
developer can easily double.

Finally there's shareware. Rather than promote your program via a
fully crippled demo, you release a working copy. Since there's no
manufacture or advertising costs, the program can be sold for less, or
in less quantity, and still remain viable.

The enticement here is twofold -- users are better able to judge the
value of a program after really using it. And if they're hooked on it
during a month's trial, they're more likely to buy it. The danger, of
course, is they user's won't buy it. Programs can expire or offer
bug-me screens to notify the user that the program is shareware, the
trial period is up, etc. But realize, a shareware program is no more
"yours for the taking" than a commerical program. Since it's only
marketing tool is the demo, you get a better demo to work with, plain
and simple.

>>>Shareware is a blight upon humanity

Care to elaborate? In what way does a particular software distribution
method make you get so riled up? Shareware isn't taking from you, it's
giving something a bit better to judge by than a commercial demo. You
are under no obligation to keep using such software. If it's not worth
the money, JUST DON'T USE IT. What a deal! With a commercial program,
you're stuck, you can't generally return it, certainly not after a 30
day trial period in most cases (some software companies offer direct
returns, but computer stores don't take them back).

>> No, people who misuse shareware or pirate software because they
>> believe that all software should be "free" are the real "blight" to
>> the rest of us.

>Agree!

Absolutely.

>> >by definition, shareware authors are amateur programers who program for fun, and not
>> >to put food on their table.

>By _whose_ definition?

Only by someone who doesn't understand shareware. Certainly some
shareware authors are amateurs. For that matter, some commerical
programmers don't do much better. If the software's not worth the
money, throw it away. Anyone getting angry about shareware is clearly
happy with the software as long as it's free, they're angry that it
isn't free. Tough luck, pal. Some folks may be angry that PageStream
or MS-Office isn't free too, that doesn't make it any more or less
correct, legally or morally, to use that software for free than it
does shareware.

And in fact, there have been plenty of commercially viable individuals
and companies that have subsisted largely on shareware. It's very
difficult on the Amiga, where most of the users seem to think that
software you download or get off a freeware CD is inherently free
itself. I sell more DiskSalv 3 copies in a good month or two than I
got DiskSalv 1/2 registrations in the 10 years DiskSalv was freely
redistributable. That's largly why I did a commercial version.

> Why couldn't MS-Word be released as a shareware?  Against the
>law, there is an industry wide agreement on software standards?  I'll
>bet it's probably just coz Microsoft finds it doesn't make economic
>sense.

Exactly. Under their chosen business model, shareware is not the route
to go. Some earlier wordprocessors on the PC did a fine shareware
business.

>>>Why not write freeware yourself? Are you really saying
>>>that your Mahjongg program was harder to write than emacs?
>>>If not, why do you demand money for it while no money is required
>>>for emacs?

Who says Emacs was less difficult to write than PageStream or, for
that matter, Microsoft Word or the Amiga OS? That's not the point. The
GNU project specifically set out to produce free software. That's
their option, and it's been a good thing for the computer
industry. Other companies have chosen to produce commercial software,
and that has also been a good thing for the computer industry.

Difficulty of programming has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
I started programming in 1973, and I wrote plenty of virtually useless
programs, early on, that were very difficult, at the time, for me to
write. So I learned, and that was the value of them. When I bought my
first personal computer, and Exidy Sorcerer, I wrote lots of programs
for it, and tried to sell some. I got published through Creative
Computing Software, which bought four of my game programs. Now, one of
these was basically my spin on the old Star Trek game, with graphics
(very primitive, this was 1979), which took a long time to write. The
other three were action games, all based on the same basic game
engine, and I wrote all three in a week. Yet there were what the
publisher wanted, although many other, more complicated programs were
rejected. Difficulty of programming has NOTHING to do with the value
of the final result.

>> >You have already discovered that shareware isn't very profitable

Some people have made a better living doing shareware than I do with
my day job and all my other projects combined. It all depends on your
product, your market, and above all the honesty of your customers.

Dave Haynie          | ex-Commodore Engineering |   for DiskSalv 3 &
Sr. Systems Engineer |  Hardwired Media Company | "The Deathbed Vigil"
Scala Inc., US R&D   |    Ki No Kawa Aikido     |     [e-mail]

         "Feeling ... Pretty ... Psyched" -R.E.M.