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.

Comments

Then you never really own the software!

[zerofoo]

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

Is troll your middle name?

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.