NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/sys/ibm/pc/misc/12011

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-29 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:12011 comp.os.msdos.apps:4557 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:3385
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!news!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!toklas!feldman
From: [e-mail] (Gary Feldman)
Subject: Re: Why do people want PD software?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 92
Sender: feldman@toklas (Gary Feldman)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:17:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Glenn Forbes Larratt) writes:
|>     #'s 2, 3, and 4 are symptoms of what I think is a larger difference
|>     between share/freeware and commercial software:
|>
|>         Commercial software is intended to make a profit first and
|>         foremost; shareware and freeware is produced and distributed
|>         for its utility and the good it can do.
|>

This is a common, and unfortunate, misperception about products in general
and software in particular.  The developers who work on commercial products are
just as interested in the utility and good of their products as anyone else.
They've simply chosen a different way to distribute it, and, as it happens,
feed their families at the same time.  More importantly, no one who writes
software whose purpose is making money will make money.  People will only buy
it if it has utility -- if it does some good for them.  Commercial vendors are
very motivated to create useful, good stuff.  If they don't, they'll go out
of business.

The differences your seeing are the differences in the customers, not the
developers.  Commercial software developers build things for customers that
have money and are willing to spend money on products that solve their
problems, hopefully saving them money in other ways.  Freeware/shareware
developers build things for customers that don't have a lot of money to spend,
or whose problems, however important, don't justify large financial expenses.
At the low end, this is just market reality.  There are many useful tools whose
utility is worth $10.  That may cover the cost of development, but can't cover
the cost of distribution through ordinary retail channels.  So they get sold
as shareware, which, in this case, is every bit as commercial, but leaves out
the distribution overhead.

There shouldn't be any value judgement involved here.  Different people
have different problems.

|>     This explains a lot of differences pointed out by other posters in
|>     this thread.
|>
|>         -  Commercial software updates cost money over and above
|>         the initial purchase price, as does technical support
|>         (sometimes; there are some commercial companies with
|>         outstanding free technical support, but more often you
|>         either get to play "hold tag" or you have to pay).
|>         Shareware authors tend to give free upgrades to registered
|>         users, and of course freeware can be updated as soon as
|>         a new version is available.

Again, this isn't a matter of intent by the different developers, it's a matter
of market size.  A shareware author fortunate enough to have several thousand
users would eventually be unable to provide free support, or free media for
upgrades.  Some happen to be brilliant enough to build things that require
little support, or else what they're building is small enough to be reliable.

At the same time, commercial vendors are very interested in reducing their
support costs while maintaining the same or better levels of service to
customers.  It's not a different attitude, just a different scale.  GE has
a very successful free consumer support line. They've solved the problem
for refrigerators and dishwashers.  It will be a little while before the
problem can be solved for commercial software, but I believe it will happen.

..
|>
|>         Commercial products tend to be laborious to install, while
|>         shareware is often as simple as unzip into a directory in
|>         your path, set an environmental variable, and go!  Admittedly,
|>         this is somewhat mercenary: a shareware product that's tough
|>         to install is not one that will get used.

I don't find a:\install particularly difficult for installation; it's easier
than what you describe for shareware, and it's representative of all the
commercial PC software I've used.  Some present more options, but I have yet
to use any that made life difficult or presented useless options.

Improving ease of installation is a very serious goal in my group.

|>
|>     To me, it all boils down to a difference in attitude: commercial
|>     software is marketed for profit, hence much of what goes on with it
|>     is designed to get your dollars.  Shareware and freeware are created
|>     with functionality first in mind, and then potential fruits of the
|>     author's labor.  It's an emphasis on substance rather than form, on
|>     craftsmanship rather than glitz; in a way, it's kind of old-fashioned.

I agree that commercial software has more glitz, but disagree with the rest.
Commercial software, to be done successfully, is designed with the customer
in mind, first, last, and throughout.  The emphasis is on solving customers
problems.  Sometimes that's functionality.  Sometimes that's form.  For every
piece of shelfware that doesn't have the right functions, there's another piece
of shelfware that does all the right things but is too difficult to use.

  Gary
  <<Insert a standard disclaimer here.>>