Slashdot Mirror
Unrestricted vs. Limited Shareware, In Dollars
mklopez writes "There is a belief in the online world that people will be more willing to compensate an author for a downloaded program that has full functionality, versus paying to unlock features in a shareware version. Someone actually put this idea to a test with surprising results."
I don't think I've ever purchased software that came crippled in the trial version. For me to do that, the following conditions would be necessary:
1) I need the software
2) No Free/Open Source alternative is available (I'd happily pay for free software before proprietary stuff)
3) I don't feel like/for some reason can't write my own version.
It hasn't happened yet. I've purchased proprietary software after using the trials, but so far crippled versions have always ticked me off just enough to go look for another solution...
Now, if only I was that smart with music -- I wouldn't be stuck with a bunch of iTunes albums that I can't play on my Linux box (and Apple's iTunes no longer installs on the version of Windows I used to use -- XP-64). I had to learn the DRM lesson the hard way...
I don't find the result surprising at all. In the real world, there are more people who will pay up if it's directly in their interests than will pay up simply out of respect/gratitude/charity/whatever, not least because one set is likely to be almost entirely contained within the other.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The result of this study is rather unsurprising to me. What is suprising is that this fairly trivial piece of software, created entirely for the purposes of this experiment, earned its author $34,075 in one year. Wow. And there was probably a good deal more money to be made if it always ran in restricted functionality mode.
Now, granted, he has an established company, so he probably has some good connections with download sites and magazines to get his program included, but that's a tidy sum for "a couple of days" of work.
Summary links to some guy's blog who briefly mentions the test then explains how he cripples his software.
The actual test is here
...because you get full use of the application. This is important if you are doing serious evaluation. And let's be realistic--if you are seriously evaluating a program, you should be able to effectively do so within the time limits as long as the time limits are reasonable. And if you really need to run over the time limit, Try contacting the company and ask them to extend it. Many (but not all) companies are more than willing to work with you if you are serious about evaluating their program.
I think we can all admit that we have, at one time or another, used a less-than-legal copy of software. Many times, it's a one-shot "need", but in many cases, it's to evaluate a program that's otherwise crippled. And for me, there are many, MANY times when the ability to have unrestricted use led to purchases.
-Jim
http://jimstips.com/
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Here's SmartDoc, the actual program used in this experiment, and a screenshot It certainly looks pretty basic.
I don't find the results very surprising. While he's trying to prove to Slashdotters the reasons for his methods he only responds with the financial ones. The reason developers on /. are generally against crippling software is because it just feels wrong to do it. If we can write software to perform a task then want to do it and give it to those who want it. The method of profit becomes secondary to the functionality of the software. Therefore we feel slightly better offering a trial period because the user gets to really use the software in all its glory. But we'd prefer to pass out our software fully functional and hope some who like it offer us something back.
I think figuring out the way to profit is a difficult problem. Not because it's hard to pick between trial periods and crippling. But because we want to feel good about the software we write and at the same time make a living from it.
Developers: We can use your help.
(It was my blog, incidentally. I don't know why the submitter had interest in a days old blog about a years old experiment, but eh, I'm happy you found it interesting.)
e -register-shareware.html as or more interesting as my blog summary of it, which strips out all the detail in favor of talking about another example (Movable Type) and two current programs (one mine, one somebody else's) and their different crippling strategies (features vs. time).
Slashdotters will almost certainly find the original article at http://hackvan.com/pub/stig/articles/why-do-peopl
(I would have modded the parent up but I get 2 points for free and modding only gives the AC 1. Sorry, AC.)
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I work in the public sector, and I have a sizable budget for IT expenses. I can justify expenditure on just about anything simply by saying I need it. However, the purchasing department wouldn't let me give money to a project if I can get the same software free of charge. We're very carefully audited to make sure our software is licensed, but if the license permits usage at no cost then there is no way we can justify giving a donation. We would be in big trouble if we were found to be `wasting' taxpayers' money in this way.
Even in the private sector, a corporation has a legal responsibility to its shareholders to reduce costs, and runs the risk of being sued by them if it donates money unnecessarily.
Neither public nor private organizations are allowed to be charitable with their patrons' money.
There was one nag screen on every startup, one on every shutdown.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
If I understand things correctly, the author of TFA is the creator of bingo-card making software for teachers to use in classroom activities. The shareware version is restricted to only create 15 cards, on the assumption that this will not be enough cards for every student, so the teacher (who also assumes that the teacher will probably use this for one lesson and then never again), wants to charge the teacher (who has over 15 students, so obviously not a teacher in a private or well-funduded suburban school) 25 USD just to teach a single lesson, or rather a single activity. Teachers don't exactly have expense accounts, and don't get paid well-enough to be expected to pay out of pocket (although they usually do anyway). As a teacher myself, I have often found myself stumbling upon such software (for learning games, quiz creation, etc), but since I spend enough already on my classroom (and my school only reimburses 50 USD per yaer) I have usually just uninstall it when I realize that it is crippled and now restrict my search to Sourceforge (and what's bundled with Edubuntu). That being said, the vast majority of such tools are not FOSS and only run on the Windows platform. They are crippled shareware apps that ususally cost about 25 USD, and are often poorly written since they are designed for one-off use. Perhaps a better solution might be for more open-source educational projects (which there are, but not nearly as many as by commercial vendors), but teachers are a time-poor lot who don't usually have time for such endeavors.
The point being made in TFA is all very well and good, for a developer who writes his own programs from scratch, or derives from public domain resources which he then closes into shareware. However, the proposal has a very limited future.
Not too far down the line, it will become completely impossible for any fully independent developer to compete against the collosal pyramid of software resources being constructed by the FOSS movement. And that includes the Redmonds and IBMs of this world, not a chance. A thousand fully paid developers beavering away without the benefit of standing on the shoulders of a thousand times that many unpaid giants will get absolutely nowhere, comparatively speaking.
This is just a simple matter of geometric growth of FOSS capability, and the trend is absolutely unstoppable (except possibly by patents, hence the worry there). To stay on the leading edge, your application will have to ride that collosal resource, because to not do so will mean spending an extreme amount of time and money reinventing the wheel and probably failing anyway. And that precludes shareware, because of licensing.
While some people don't like the intentionally viral nature of the GPL, it is instrumental in making sure that this stunningly huge resource continues to grow and to be ever more beneficial to the community that uses it. While that doesn't make its use compulsary, and non-dependent developers like in TFA will probably always exist for small projects, the general trend is clear: if you want to write something beyond your ability for total reinvention, you won't be able to make it shareware.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
(Hiya, I'm the author of TFA and Bingo Card Creator). Here's the closest OSS program to my software: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bingo-cards/ . Feel free to use it if it fits your needs better. (I'll be perfectly honest: I think I do a much better job. For example, I have features such as "actually runs on a Windows PC instead of crashing on install" and "prints without leaving the program". If I didn't think I could do a better job than what was available for free, I wouldn't have invested my time and money into the project.) If not, you can do things the traditional way by paying your educational publisher of choice $15 a bingo card set. If you plan on doing this activity twice, ever, I really do save you money.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Except one thing: Usability. I've encountered few pieces of FOSS software that I would consider truly usable. Firefox is a delightful exception, as well as Adium (IM client for OSX), but for the most part it's just a dreadery of buttons and panels that only a coder could grok.
That's all fine and dandy for the "background" type of FOSS, things like Apache, MySQL, PHP and whatnot, where your target audience are of the technical inclination.
That is also why I have serious doubts about the ability for FOSS to unseat consumer-level software. Until FOSS administrators and coders wake up and realize that usability is a key cornerstone of effective software, people will continue paying for proprietary software that gives them just that.
Did anyone else find it more than slightly ironic, given the discussion about Moveable Type and its move from donationware to crippleware, what the guy's blog is run with?
... WordPress.
That's right, it's
You know, the FOSS/GPL competitor to Moveable Type, which gained popularity in no small part because of the exodus of users from Moveable Type circa version 3.0, when they tried to cripple the free personal version. (I won't say that WP was created in response to that, because it wasn't and has existed as far back as 2001 in various incarnations, but it's hard to avoid noting that it definitely got popular as a result of MT's licensing fiasco.)
I think it's also worth noting that Moveable Type has since restored their personal version to full-feature status; although I don't know what their exact motivations are, it seems inconceivable that the competition from Free sources wasn't part of the decision.
I think there's a lesson here, but I'll leave determining what that is as an exercise for the reader.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
How do most people buy and use software?
1) Fully functional software that is pre-installed on their computer
2) Use a light, but fully functional version, that is pre-installed on their computer
3) Buy the full version of software needed at a store. Or, buy the pro version of 2), that has more features.
4) Do internet research and find a list of shareware and freeware and try to find the best of the bunch for the lowest cost
5) Get a list of FOSS/freeware from a knowlegable guru to install on their computer.
Once someone gets software on their computer, they are usually very hesitant to get rid of it, especially if they like how it works. For example, I currently use CamFrog, which is slightly crippled. It only allows you view one camera at a time in a small window. Otherwise, it is fully functional. Now, as I become more addicted to using the software, I want to watch more than one webcam at a time, and in bigger windows. The marginal utility for the $50 pro version is huge!
If the software is so crippled that I can't try it out, or have a chance to become reliant upon it, paying $ to use it might not be worth it.
On the other hand, if its not crippled at all, and its fully functional, I have no incentive to give money at all, except altruisticly.
"Not too far down the line, it will become completely impossible for any fully independent developer to compete against the collosal pyramid of software resources being constructed by the FOSS movement."
There are thousands of niche apps created by small vendors that have no open source equivalent, and never will. Give your head a shake, and stop dreaming.
Realise that there will always be a place - a very large place - for proprietary, paid-for software. Usability, strange niches (like bingo cards), custom projects, games, and so on will always mean a huge marketplace for software. And yes, I have written Linux kernel code, contributed to projects like KDE and Asterisk, and so on and so forth. But I write closed source software for a living, on contract, and let me tell you, there is so much work out there it's crazy, and it's only getting bigger.