Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unrestricted vs. Limited Shareware, In Dollars

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the more-evil-or-less-in-your-coffee? dept.

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."

7 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Test? What test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Summary links to some guy's blog who briefly mentions the test then explains how he cripples his software.

    The actual test is here

  2. I prefere timed limits over feature limits... by jbarr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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!
    1. Re:I prefere timed limits over feature limits... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to actually make money, the best is probably a combination. When first downloaded you get full functionality, for a time. This gets you hooked on all the features. Then the trial period runs out and the features are limited. You know the features are there, and you can still use the program, but to reactivate all the features you need to pay.

      Simply shutting down the program at the end of the trial period, for me at least, means I will stop running the program and thinking about it. I'll probably check to see if there is another way to do what I need, without using your program. If you want me to pay, you need to keep me using it, but disable enough that I think paying is worth it.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  3. Re:Paying for crippled software by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, but everyone says "I'd rather donate money to a worthy Open Source project than pay for crippleware," but how many of those people actually do? I'm guessing that a very small fraction of the people that claim to be willing to monetarily support Open Source software actually do so. Most people will download and use the software, and maybe post something to the effect of "I'd have no problem paying for this." But along with that statement is the implied "...but I don't have to, so I won't."

  4. Is crippling wrong? by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Parent Contains Useful Information by patio11 · · Score: 4, Informative

    (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.)

    Slashdotters will almost certainly find the original article at http://hackvan.com/pub/stig/articles/why-do-people -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).

    (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.
  6. I'm not *allowed* to donate! by Saunalainen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.