Slashdot Mirror
More On Policing Shareware
RHW22 writes "Washington Post's Rob Pegoraro looks at shareware, focusing on the question of whether or not this industry can survive if people never actually cough up $$ for the product. He mentions Ambrosia Software, 'a developer of Macintosh games and utilities in Rochester, N.Y., could stop guessing after it revised its payment system last year. The new system aims to stop people from using pirated registration codes in two ways.' Read his column here." We mentioned this several weeks ago, with a link to Ambrosia's description of their system and what led to its adoption.
You want to make money on shareware? Charge less. Make it very convenient to pay. And don't annoy the end user.
Headlight Software has made lots of money from Getright registrations, despite some people having pirated it. I've registered it myself. (I think it was $20, not $25, when I did, though.)
If a software company wants too much money for a piece of shareware, users will get a patch or key generator rather than pay. If the software nags the hell out of the user when he installs it, he'll get mad. I know I do.
When I purchase software, I own the product. The problem with expiring registration codes is that you only own the software as long as the company is in business.
What happens when Ambrosia goes out of business and the software code expires? Your product that you PAID FOR stops working.
Can you imagine the impact of GM going out of business and then finding your car doesn't start the next morning? You paid for that car, and you expect it to function correctly for the expected life of that car.
Expiring codes, WPA, and all the other software piracy/protection schemes out there remove control of the software from the end user and shift it to the software vendor. It is only a small step to software as a subscription service after that.
I'm really glad my Linux machine is totally free and if Microsoft, or Ambrosia goes out of business it will still keep working.
-ted
The way I see it, shareware authors shouldn't expect to turn a profit. They should just see being profitable as a nice perk.
Why shouldn't shareware authors expect to make a profit? Because you say so?
Shareware is a distribution model - you like it so you register it, recommend it to your friends, etc - nothing more, nothing less.
Too many people equate shareware with free, and those that resort to password cracks are the worst kind as they can't even use the "I just wanted to see if it was what I wanted" defence.
Sure, most people will take advantage of the situation and never register software that they decide to use beyond the trial period, but some people are more honest and will happily pony up $20 for a package that does the job they want done.
But saying that the authors, the people who invested their time and effort into code that other people benefit from, shouldn't expect to see a return on their work is downright unbelievable.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I find it disturbing that so many people continually show such complete ignorance of the history of this industry.
Shareware is fully-functional software for which you are *encouraged* to pay the developer (if you find it useful). You are also encouraged to share it with your friends, hence the name shareware. It is not time limited. It is not missing any functionality necessary for normal operation. It may have annoying messages nagging you to please pay, but if it is hampered in any way in which you must pay to get the fully-functional version, it is a commercial demo.
It's offensive that so many people these days seem to be freeloading off the good will and generosity of the shareware community in order to sell their commercial products!
Actually, I'll just quote Linus: " In my opinion, shareware tends to combine the worst of commercial software (no sources) with the worst of free software (no finishing touches). I simply do not believe in the shareware market at all. "
Perhaps I've been spoiled by Linux, but I'm getting into Mac OS X now, and there are tons of little apps that on Linux would be free, but some chump wants $9 for on OS X. Yeah, part of it is me being cheap, but I keep going back to Linus's quote and end up not buying it.
"Shareware + source" might be interesting, even with a non-RMS-compliant license, but I haven't seen it. (And of course, I'd prefer full GPL if possible.)
If a developer spends 1200 hours of her life making a game, is it your right to disregard her terms?
The DEVELOPER is the OWNER of her own product. She does indeed have exclusive rights to her own creation; if she kept the only copy of the software encrypted on a CD and locked in a filing cabinet, you have absolutely no right to tell her that she must give it to you. If she gives it to you on the condition that you don't give it to anybody else, you have absolutely no right to give it to other people. She can choose to develop and distribute it however she sees fit, and she gets FINAL SAY in this matter. It doesn't matter if you don't want to cough up ten dollars; it doesn't matter if she wants to set up a registration scheme that forces you to call a 900 number every time you want to use the program. The terms are completely up to the DEVELOPER, not the consumer.
If you don't like the terms a developer has set forth, then don't use that developer's product. It's that simple. Cracking a developer's product for the express purpose of using it on your own terms is incredibly disrespectful to the developer. She worked hard to produce that software, she deserves respect, and she has the right to set out her own terms. You the end user, on the other hand, did exactly jack shit to create said software. Where do you get off telling us that it's morally okay to tell the developer to go piss up a rope?
If you disagree with a developer's terms, them do not use the software. Period.
Software development takes time. Software development takes energy. Software development takes thought. Software development is always, at some point, a royal pain in the ass. Software development is a labor of love. That you have the gall to even suggest that the end-user has the right to dictate their own terms to the developer tells me that you have never, ever developed software of any real magnitude.
There are precious few ways to keep people from pirating software, but damned if I'm going to let you claim that it's the right thing to do.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions