Shareware
Robert Mah
>I argued that if you trust your users, they will see you as a human being,
>rather than as a business trying to make money off of them.
>I was wrong. MAC SHAREWARE USERS ARE SCUM (generally). I have just
No, they're just people. And if everyone was nice, generous, kind, etc.
then communism would work. Obviouslly, it didn't.
Anyway, while it's nice that you originally felt that it was best to
assume the best of people, there's no reason to shift position to the
opposite extreme.
Also, it's my understanding that your product is a cosmetic enhancement
utility. As such, it will probably be tried and tossed by a large number
of people. And remember, shareware means "try before you buy", not
"distributed electronically." Saying that, it's probably likely that only
a very small percentage of your products users send the fee. Face it,
unless there's both a carrot and a stick to coax people into sending money,
they won't. That's a simple fact of life.
Cheers,
Rob
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
Robert Mah
>Paying for shareware requires that you are nice and kind (or at least
>not malicious), but it has nothing to do with generosity. If a person
>uses my sharware program, then I have provided them a service, and they
>are obliged to pay me for it. This is entirely capitalistic, BTW.
Well, they're being "generous", in my opinion, because there is usually
no repercussion to not paying. And as for being "entirely capitalistic",
I'd have to disagree because classical notions of capitalism assume
scarcity. With software is absurdley easy to "manufacture" the goods,
thereby putting some of the fundimental notions of capitalism in doubt.
>>Also, it's my understanding that your product is a cosmetic enhancement
>>utility. As such, it will probably be tried and tossed by a large number
>>of people. And remember, shareware means "try before you buy", not
>>"distributed electronically." Saying that, it's probably likely that only
>>a very small percentage of your products users send the fee. Face it,
>>unless there's both a carrot and a stick to coax people into sending money,
>>they won't. That's a simple fact of life.
>Next time, please read my post before replying to it. Sigh. I didn't
>post the original message to argue over the merits of Greg's Buttons.
And, I didn't comment on it's merits.
>Although Greg's Buttons is a cosmetic enhancement, I happen to know that
>it is EXTREMELY popular. It has made MacUser twice (in addition to being
>nominated for the MacUser Shareware Awards), and several people who have
>sent in the registration fees have commented that everybody they know
>uses Greg's Buttons.
It's good to know that you create quality products that are respected and
admired. However, realize that distribution is usually extremely
fragmented and "clumped" when the primary means of advertising is word of
mouth. By that, I mean that within certain communities (be they
geographic or otherwise) the product may enjoy significant penetration
while in others, there will be almost none. It's the nature of word of
mouth advertising.
>Greg's Buttons already has the "carrot". Now I'll have to do
>something about that "stick".
That, IMO, is the correct approach. If you goal is to increase revenues,
relying on the altruism of your customers simply will not work. I know
that sounds extremely negative on the surface, but I think it just
reflects that fact that most people will pay as little as possible for a
given product.
Howard S Shubs
>Hello. I am the author of the shareware control panel, Greg's Buttons.
>A while ago, I posted to the net that the way to be successful with a
>shareware product is not to have constant shareware reminders, but to
>produce a quality product that people will remember to register themselves.
>I argued that if you trust your users, they will see you as a human being,
>rather than as a business trying to make money off of them.
>I was wrong. MAC SHAREWARE USERS ARE SCUM (generally).
Nothing quite like extreams, eh?
>I have just
>discovered from a friend of mine who is a shareware author that he is
>making nearly twice as much from his shareware product as I am making
>from Greg's Buttons. As far as I can tell, Greg's Buttons is significantly
>more popular than his product.
How can you tell this? Download counts somewhere? Understand that that
only gives you the number of people who are -looking at- your product, not
the number who are -using- it.
>So, it looks like the next version of Greg's Buttons will have an
>annoying shareware reminder (that you won't be able to turn off so
>easily). For me, this might make the difference between buying a
>PowerBook Duo 210 and a Quadra 840av.
Well, I guess as long as you're dreaming, you might as well dream
big.
--
Howard S Shubs hsh...@bix.com For to win 100 victories in 100
The Denim Adept hsh...@cis.umassd.edu battles is not the acme of skill.
G.D. Landweber
>gdl...@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.D. Landweber) writes:
>>I argued that if you trust your users, they will see you as a human being,
>>rather than as a business trying to make money off of them.
>>I was wrong. MAC SHAREWARE USERS ARE SCUM (generally). I have just
>No, they're just people. And if everyone was nice, generous, kind, etc.
>then communism would work. Obviouslly, it didn't.
Paying for shareware requires that you are nice and kind (or at least
not malicious), but it has nothing to do with generosity. If a person
uses my sharware program, then I have provided them a service, and they
are obliged to pay me for it. This is entirely capitalistic, BTW.
>Also, it's my understanding that your product is a cosmetic enhancement
>utility. As such, it will probably be tried and tossed by a large number
>of people. And remember, shareware means "try before you buy", not
>"distributed electronically." Saying that, it's probably likely that only
>a very small percentage of your products users send the fee. Face it,
>unless there's both a carrot and a stick to coax people into sending money,
>they won't. That's a simple fact of life.
Next time, please read my post before replying to it. Sigh. I didn't
post the original message to argue over the merits of Greg's Buttons.
My comment was that a friend of mine with a SIGNIFICANTLY LESS POPULAR
program is making nearly double the money that I do. In other words,
more people are using Greg's Buttons, but more people are paying for
my friend's program (and yes, I admit that I am jealous).
Although Greg's Buttons is a cosmetic enhancement, I happen to know that
it is EXTREMELY popular. It has made MacUser twice (in addition to being
nominated for the MacUser Shareware Awards), and several people who have
sent in the registration fees have commented that everybody they know
uses Greg's Buttons.
There are a great many people using Greg's Buttons who decide that
they will not pay for it because they don't "need" it. All the same,
they continue to use it far beyond a reasonable trial period.
Greg's Buttons already has the "carrot". Now I'll have to do
something about that "stick".
-- Greg "Buttons" Landweber
Mario Herodotus
Okay, lets put the shoe on the other foot.
MAC SHAREWARE AUTHORS ARE SCUM (generally) too.
I'm getting real tired of shareware authors calling me scum and whatever
else. You shareware authors are just as guilty of the same crap. I've
registered lots of shareware, and I have been burnt too many times. The
shareware authors give up on the program, and it won't work with the next
Mac OS release and I have no recourse. The authors promise free upgrades,
printed manuals, floppy disks, and I have been stiffed many times.
Many of the shareware programs I've registered have promised a free upgrade
to the next version but then they go commercial. Instead of the free upgrade
I was promised I get a letter telling me that for another $xx.xx I can get
the new commercial version. That's not what the shareware agreement said,
and changing the name from MacSharewareBlah to MacCommercialwareBlah doesn't
change your original obligation to the user. You were contemplating licensing
Greg's Buttons to Apple in another post, where would that leave your own
registered users? Not just the ones with access to the net, how about the ones
that would have to pay to get the next version...sounds like maybe soon you
might fall into the catagory above.
I trash over 90% of what I download, and there are very few inits/control
panels on my system especially shareware ones. The number of people who look
at your program has nothing to do with the number that use it.
If I find value in a program I will eventually register it. Often the trial
period is 10 days, sometimes I've only used a program once in 10 days
(not applicable probably for you control panel) so I don't feel I've had the
time to properly judge the usefulness of the program. It may take a little
longer sometimes.
I find your statement offensive. If you want to put a reminder in your
program then go ahead, just do it without calling us scum...often the authors
of shareware are just as much to blame as the users of it. In your case, I
wouldn't doubt people trash it or steal it because they want to get even for
your comments.
Mario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't afford my own opinions, and DEC won't pay for them either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Herodotus (CX03 2/N12) | m_her...@csc32.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation |
Customer Support Center | or m_herodotus%csc3...@decwrl.dec.com
305 Rockrimmon Blvd. |
Colorado Springs, CO 80919 | or ...!decwrl!csc32.dec.com!m_herodotus
|
(800) 354-9000 Ext 25520 | or CSC32::M_HERODOTUS
[direct line (719) 592-5520] |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Siegel
>>Also, it's my understanding that your product is a cosmetic enhancement
>>utility. As such, it will probably be tried and tossed by a large number
>>of people. And remember, shareware means "try before you buy", not
>>"distributed electronically." Saying that, it's probably likely that only
>>a very small percentage of your products users send the fee. Face it,
>>unless there's both a carrot and a stick to coax people into sending money,
>>they won't. That's a simple fact of life.
>
>Next time, please read my post before replying to it. Sigh. I didn't
>post the original message to argue over the merits of Greg's Buttons.
I don't believe that Mr. Mah made any statement as to the merit (or
lack thereof) of your software; he was merely making a point.
>My comment was that a friend of mine with a SIGNIFICANTLY LESS POPULAR
>program is making nearly double the money that I do. In other words,
>more people are using Greg's Buttons, but more people are paying for
>my friend's program (and yes, I admit that I am jealous).
So there's obviously something wrong with your approach. The market is
rich with inferior best-selling software. MS-DOS comes to mind. :-)
>Although Greg's Buttons is a cosmetic enhancement, I happen to know that
>it is EXTREMELY popular. It has made MacUser twice (in addition to being
>nominated for the MacUser Shareware Awards), and several people who have
>sent in the registration fees have commented that everybody they know
>uses Greg's Buttons.
Goody for you. If it's that good, perhaps you should consider making
it commercially available, and then freely distributing a crippled
demo version, and instituting a reasonable upgrade policy for people
who have old versions. In the case of Greg's Buttons (I've seen it,
but don't use it, BTW), it seems that it would be a good component of
a utilities collection such as NOW Fun, or Aladdin's Desktop Tools, or
something of a similar nature, rather than a product by itself.
>There are a great many people using Greg's Buttons who decide that
>they will not pay for it because they don't "need" it. All the same,
>they continue to use it far beyond a reasonable trial period.
>
>Greg's Buttons already has the "carrot". Now I'll have to do
>something about that "stick".
Life is hard. One of the most negative things I've seen about
shareware is the people who write it (and yes, I've done shareware
before). There's a great deal of reasonable shareware out there, but
in many cases, the authors seem to expect a uniformly favorable
response to their software, followed closely by a rain of dollar
bills, and when it doesn't happen, they get upset because the bubble
has burst.
If you're doing shareware for anything except the spare pocket change,
you'll be disappointed. (There are exceptions, of course - one author
I know says he brought in about $5K, which is helpful when you're a
doctoral student. Of course, this was over a product life cycle of a
couple of years.)
If you're expecting us to feel bad for you because you can't afford to
buy that Cyclone you've been lusting after, prepare yourself to be
disappointed. Publicly whining and insulting your target market won't
advance your cause, but putting a little effort into making a
desirable product and ensuring your return on investment will.
R.
--
Rich Siegel Internet: sie...@world.std.com
Senior Software Engineer GCC Technologies
"Unfortunately, her brain doesn't work like one could reasonably expect it to."
G.D. Landweber
>I'm getting real tired of shareware authors calling me scum and whatever
>else. You shareware authors are just as guilty of the same crap. I've
I would say that in general, shareware authors are much better at living
up to their promises than shareware users are at paying for their fees.
>registered lots of shareware, and I have been burnt too many times. The
>shareware authors give up on the program, and it won't work with the next
>Mac OS release and I have no recourse. The authors promise free upgrades,
>printed manuals, floppy disks, and I have been stiffed many times.
I do not promise free upgrades, printed manuals, or floppy disks, and I
specifically say so in my documentation files. People often incorrectly
assume that when they pay for shareware, they must get something in return.
In my opinion, people should register for shareware because they like the
program sitting on their hard disk, not to get a free subscription.
When you pay $100 for a commercial package, I understand that you would
want upgrades. You have made a considerable investment in such a program,
and the companies are expected to have the facilities to handle mass mailings.
Perhaps the reason why shareware authors give up on updating their programs
is because the get very little money for it, and they have more productive
ways to spend their time. If you send in a $10 shareware fee, that might
be the equivalent of half an hour's work, and it is even less if you want
a printed manual and a copy of the update on floppy disk.
>Many of the shareware programs I've registered have promised a free upgrade
>to the next version but then they go commercial. Instead of the free upgrade
>I was promised I get a letter telling me that for another $xx.xx I can get
>the new commercial version. That's not what the shareware agreement said,
>and changing the name from MacSharewareBlah to MacCommercialwareBlah doesn't
>change your original obligation to the user.
Come now! Even with the recent surge in shareware programs going commercial,
this does not happen very often. In most cases, the change is more than
changing the name, and the commercial version is a significant enhancement.
The reason that the author is able to make these improvements is because he
now has the financial backing of a software publisher. It only makes sense
to pay that company a little for the upgrade. In my experience, such
upgrades are generally very cheap compared to the commerical price.
>You were contemplating licensing
>Greg's Buttons to Apple in another post, where would that leave your own
>registered users? Not just the ones with access to the net, how about the ones
>that would have to pay to get the next version...sounds like maybe soon you
>might fall into the catagory above.
I have no intention of turning Greg's Buttons into a commercial product.
If I were to license it to Apple (which I don't expect Apple to do), it
would be like Mode32 and ATM, which are now distributed for FREE.
>I trash over 90% of what I download, and there are very few inits/control
>panels on my system especially shareware ones. The number of people who look
>at your program has nothing to do with the number that use it.
My comment on the popularity of Greg's Buttons is not based on the number
of downloads. Rather, it is based on reports from registered users, who
claim that everybody they know uses Greg's Buttons. I have not seen this
for myself since I am in England, but my friends in the USA have commented
similarly on the popularity of Greg's Buttons.
>I find your statement offensive. If you want to put a reminder in your
>program then go ahead, just do it without calling us scum...often the authors
>of shareware are just as much to blame as the users of it. In your case, I
>wouldn't doubt people trash it or steal it because they want to get even for
>your comments.
I said that Mac shareware users are scum (generally). By (generally), I
naturally exclude those people who actually make an attempt to register,
or who do not register for a definite reason (such as your complaints).
Many people have commented that people aren't scum, but it is just human
nature. From dealing with shareware and reading flames on the net, it is
no wonder that I am so cynical!
-- Greg "Buttons" Landweber
G.D. Landweber
>In article <1993Aug7.2...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gdl...@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.D. Landweber) writes:
>>Next time, please read my post before replying to it. Sigh. I didn't
>>post the original message to argue over the merits of Greg's Buttons.
>
>I don't believe that Mr. Mah made any statement as to the merit (or
>lack thereof) of your software; he was merely making a point.
Mr. Mah's statement was a comment on the merit of cosmetic enhancements,
so it was also indirectly a statement on the merits of Greg's Buttons.
The point that Greg's Buttons is a cosmetic enhancement and will therefore
receive fewer registrations is not relevant to this thread. I am not
complaining about the lack of registrations, but rather that a program
with lower distribution is getting twice as many as Greg's Buttons.
Incidentally, this other program is also a cosmetic enhancement.
>So there's obviously something wrong with your approach. The market is
>rich with inferior best-selling software. MS-DOS comes to mind. :-)
I never said that my friend's shareware product is inferior. I just
commented that it is less popular (i.e., fewer people use it), but that
he nevertheless makes more money. This is different from MS-DOS, which
is an inferior product (please don't flame me on this, this is a Mac group,
so we are entitled to believe that unchallenged), but sells better because
it has a higher distribution.
>Goody for you. If it's that good, perhaps you should consider making
>it commercially available, and then freely distributing a crippled
>demo version, and instituting a reasonable upgrade policy for people
>who have old versions.
I'd rather trust in the inherent goodness of mankind. All I ask is
that 1 out of 10 people who use Greg's Buttons send in the money.
Is that too much to ask? It seems so.
>In the case of Greg's Buttons (I've seen it,
>but don't use it, BTW), it seems that it would be a good component of
>a utilities collection such as NOW Fun, or Aladdin's Desktop Tools, or
>something of a similar nature, rather than a product by itself.
Greg's Buttons does not fit in with Aladdin's Desktop Tools package,
and I doubt whether I will sell anything to Now Software (since Greg's
Buttons is a cosmetic enhancement, they automatically assumed that it
duplicates the functionality of Now Fun, and they said so in their
docs to Now Compress. I believe they have fixed this "misprint" after
I complained to them).
>Life is hard. One of the most negative things I've seen about
>shareware is the people who write it (and yes, I've done shareware
>before). There's a great deal of reasonable shareware out there, but
>in many cases, the authors seem to expect a uniformly favorable
>response to their software, followed closely by a rain of dollar
>bills, and when it doesn't happen, they get upset because the bubble
>has burst.
As I said before, I am not complaining about the lack of shareware
registrations, but rather that a product with lower distribution
earns double the money simply because it has a shareware message.
And I would say that Greg's Buttons is "reasonable shareware".
>If you're doing shareware for anything except the spare pocket change,
>you'll be disappointed. (There are exceptions, of course - one author
>I know says he brought in about $5K, which is helpful when you're a
>doctoral student. Of course, this was over a product life cycle of a
>couple of years.)
Greg's Buttons is doing much better than that the author you know,
and yes, I am a doctoral student, too.
>If you're expecting us to feel bad for you because you can't afford to
>buy that Cyclone you've been lusting after, prepare yourself to be
>disappointed. Publicly whining and insulting your target market won't
>advance your cause, but putting a little effort into making a
>desirable product and ensuring your return on investment will.
Again, my comment is that my friend with a similar product and lower
distribution is generating double the income, and he IS able to afford
the latest top-of-the-line technology.
And, aside from my "scum" sentence, the rest of my original post wasn't
whining or insulting anyone. Pitty you didn't read the rest of it.
If you had, then you would have noticed that I was NOT commenting on
the lack of shareware registrations. Rather, I was commenting that
from my experience (based on my shareware sales and those of a friend),
it seems that people are more likely to register their shareware to
get rid of an annoying shareware message than they are because they
use the product.
-- Greg "Buttons" Landweber
gdl...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Jeremy Roussak;Guest of Distributed Systems Lab
of Greg's Buttons and an ad hominem argument about Greg's personality,
which seems a shame. I don't think that Greg's intemperate language,
which obviously reflects considerable frustration, should obscure the need
to consider some questions about shareware.
1. Why do people write shareware?
2. Why do people use shareware?
3. Why do people register shareware, and, as a corollary, why are the
people who register such a small proportion (as far as one can judge)
of the people using it?
4. Does a shareware author have any obligations to the people who
register his software (and pay him money for it)?
5. What can we (collectively) do to make things better?
I have written a few shareware and freeware programs. Although
in real life I am a renowned cynic, my experiences have been
rather better than Greg's, I think. Here are my ruminations,
for what they're worth.
1. I enjoy writing software. I've written programs for a number of
computers, from IBM/370s and PDP-7s to Psion Organisers and the Mac.
I also get a kick out of seeing other people use my software,
whether or not they've paid any money for it. I write stuff that I
find interesting (generally extensions and control panels) and
that I will find useful when finished. If other people also find
it useful, that's great. If they find it so useful that they
are prepared to pay me money for it, that's even better, but it
isn't why I wrote it in the first place. I have a mortgage and a
wife and two kids to support: I don't expect shareware to buy
me steaks or to pay for my kids' school fees, but if it can make
my hobby self-supporting, I can afford to upgrade my Mac and that
makes me happy.
2. For the same reason Hillary climbed Everest: because it's there.
Most shareware, let's be honest about it, isn't much good. It hasn't
been properly debugged, it conflicts with other software, it has a
lousy human interface, it crashes, it doesn't do what it's supposed
to do. A commercial company selling such stuff would go out of
business. But it's shareware: it costs nothing to try out, so we
give it a go. Maybe we back up our hard disks first. There's always
the chance that we'll find shareware that does what we want it to do,
doesn't have the frills that a commercial program might have that
would be handy but not necessary, and is much cheaper. Those programs
do well: Zterm and Compact Pro spring to mind.
3. Because they support the concept. There's no other reason, really.
Some shareware (one of mine, for example) puts up messages after a while
to "remind" the user that the stuff is shareware and should be paid for.
I like this method: my program continues to work fully, it's not crippled
in any way, but it issues gentle reminders from time to time. I send a
key to people who register, which turns the message off. It doesn't unlock
new features: stuff like that isn't shareware, it's demo software or
"crippleware". Why do so few people register? Because human nature is
not to pay for something you already have. As long as a sufficient number
of people are honest enough to pay, the rogues will get away with it.
It's a variant on the Prisoner's Dilemma, as has been commented upon
before (details on request).
4. Only if he (and "he", of course, embraces "she") has made promises.
With shareware, you pay for what you already have. Period. That's
a legalistic point of view. My own view is that I do have obligations
to people who have registered, and even to people who haven't but
have gone to the trouble to send me email. I try to reply promptly
and courteously, to consider suggestions for improving the program,
to try to fix bugs and generally to return, particularly to the Net,
some of the help I have been given. On the other hand, if the author
has promised free upgrades, printed manuals and the like, it's
dishonest not to supply them.
5. Here my cynicism does show through: nothing. As long as shareware
continues to be written and distributed as such, some shareware
authors will be well rewarded and others, less so. The reward will
not necessarily be in proportion to the author's view of the value
of his work, though: one of my programs is indispensable (to me),
and has achieved, in three years, the vast total of ten registrations.
Putting messages in shareware (Greg's "stick") won't make many more
people register. It will remind some, who might have forgotten (and
people do forget) that they should pay, but it will merely provoke
many more to throw the software away.
My cynicism has been tempered mainly because my most recent program (and
I won't mention its name, because I don't want an argument about its
merits or otherwise) has been more successful not than I had ever dreamt
possible (I had visions of the postman ringing my bell, staggering under
the weight of several sacks of mail daily), but certainly more than I
had realistically thought likely. This cheered me up a lot.
Comments, as they say, please.
Jeremy
Elliotte Harold
|> Paying for shareware requires that you are nice and kind (or at least
|> not malicious), but it has nothing to do with generosity. If a person
|> uses my sharware program, then I have provided them a service, and they
|> are obliged to pay me for it. This is entirely capitalistic, BTW.
|>
This is neither capitalistic nor true. Under capitalism I try to
maximize my profits. I fail to see how I do that by paying for something
I can get for free.
More importantly I feel no "obligation" to pay for shareware.
I may choose to do so for various reasons such as supporting further
development, getting better support, unlocking new features,
or removing annoying shareware dialogs. However I am in no way
"obligated" to do so. I am not aware of any case that has gone to
court involving the use of shareware without payment. However I suspect
that if one ever does reach a judge it will be dismissed before
you can say "shareware fee." You have made your software freely
available for all to use. You cannot then turn around and demand
that you be paid for it. Some people may choose to send you money,
but that's by their choice, not by legal obligation.
It is possible that if a particular piece of shareware displayed
an introductory message that spelled out a limited license agreement
in a dialog box with buttons for "I agree" and "I do not agree"
(OK and Cancel in normal Mac parlance) before it ran, then you
MIGHT have a license agreement that would hold up in court. However
without any such agreement the only protection you have is that
provided against unauthorized copying by copyright law, most of
which protection you've waived by making it freely available on
the net.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold National Solar Observatory
eha...@sunspot.noao.edu Sunspot NM 88349
Roy Smith
> This is neither capitalistic nor true. Under capitalism I try to
>maximize my profits. I fail to see how I do that by paying for something
>I can get for free.
By that logic, it's perfectly OK to just make copies of Microsoft
Word for every Mac in your office. You can get it for free, so obviously
paying for it won't maximize your profits. There is a difference between
"can" and "may".
> I am not aware of any case that has gone to court involving the use
> of shareware without payment.
Why must the definition of what's right and what's wrong depend on
the outcome of a legal battle? In many small towns it's not uncommon to see
a stack of newspapers in front of a store with a box next to it with a slot
on top to put your coin in when you take a paper. There is absolutely
nothing to keep you from taking a newspaper without paying for it, yet
everybody understands that the papers are there to be sold. Picking the top
one up and reading the front page before you decide if you want to buy it is
generally considered to be within the bounds of "what's right", as long as
you put it back neatly should you decide you didn't want it after all. What
better analogy to shareware could there be? Do you realy think just taking
a paper without paying for it doesn't constitute theft? You may never get
caught (and if you do, it'll certainly not be worth anybody's time to drag
you into court), the value of the item stolen is pretty small, maybe even
"everybody does it", but it's still theft.
--
Roy Smith <r...@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
Ronald Bruck
>In article <1993Aug8.0...@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> m_her...@csc32.dec.com writes:
>>I'm getting real tired of shareware authors calling me scum and whatever
>>else. You shareware authors are just as guilty of the same crap. I've
>
>I would say that in general, shareware authors are much better at living
>up to their promises than shareware users are at paying for their fees.
>
>
>I do not promise free upgrades, printed manuals, or floppy disks, and I
>specifically say so in my documentation files. People often incorrectly
>assume that when they pay for shareware, they must get something in return.
>In my opinion, people should register for shareware because they like the
>program sitting on their hard disk, not to get a free subscription.
I have to jump in to Greg's defense here; he sells a fairly complex product
(given the potential for conflicts) at a bargain price, and--if you pay the
shareware fee and have an e-mail address--keeps you up-to-date on all the
beta releases.
Shareware authors don't usually promise you free future updates. What they
promise you is that you will receive future updates for free. The difference
is that THEY DON'T PROMISE THERE WILL BE UPDATES. This is in contrast to,
say, Wolfram Research's Mathematica Plus program; this is a one-year
"maintenance contract" for Mathematica which promises at least two free
updates.
The shareware that I use, I pay for, (sometimes months late, but I eventually
pay). But I'm sure I'm the exception; the vast majority of USED shareware
is undoubtedly not paid for. But, Greg, why do you think MAC Shareware
users are scum? I'd say shareware abuse, and illegal software copying,
is far more rampant in the DOS world.
--Ron Bruck
G.D. Landweber
>The shareware that I use, I pay for, (sometimes months late, but I eventually
>pay). But I'm sure I'm the exception; the vast majority of USED shareware
>is undoubtedly not paid for. But, Greg, why do you think MAC Shareware
>users are scum? I'd say shareware abuse, and illegal software copying,
>is far more rampant in the DOS world.
Why do I think (most) MAC Shareware users are scum as opposed to shareware
users in the DOS world? Because I have data on Mac shareware users, but I
do not have any data on DOS shareware users.
Let me reiterate my reasons for my original post in this thread. I was
NOT complaining about the small number of shareware registrations for
Greg's Buttons. Rather, a friend of mine who writes a similar type of
shareware program is making nearly double the money that I am, even
though we both agree that more people use Greg's Buttons than his product.
This is not based upon download statistics, but rather from our own
observations of Macs in the field and the observations of our friends.
The only way we can account for this is that his program has an annoying
shareware message that pops up after the trial period is over, and you
need to register to remove it. Ergo, I concluded that people are more
likely to register a program to get rid of an annoying shareware message
(the "stick") than because they like and use the product regularly (the
"carrot"). Granted, there are some people who appreciate the shareware
notice as a simple reminder, but I still believe that most shareware
users simply do not care enough.
I thought I should bring this interesting (and supported) claim to
the attention of the net, but unfortunately people did not read past
the "SCUM" line in my post. I should not have capitalized it.
-- Greg "Buttons" Landweber
G.D. Landweber
>90% of what Greg's Buttons does *IS* duplicated in NowFun. The
>exceptions? 3D buttons and replacing the system font.
My original post was not intended to degenerate into a discussion of the
merits of Greg's Buttons, but since you bring it up, I want to help squash
these misconceptions about Now Fun.
The features of Greg's Buttons are:
1. 3-d color buttons with several different designs for push buttons,
radio buttons, and check boxes. This is the MAJOR feature of
Greg's Buttons, and the main reason why I expect most people
register it. As you said, Now Fun does not do this.
2. Substitute system fonts. As you said, Now Fun does not do this.
Although you can hack together your own system fonts with ResEdit,
you need to provide special characters for use in menus (such as
the cloverleaf, check mark, diamond, and apple), and you need to
get the spacing just right so it will work with Canvas, the Alarm
Clock, MacWrite, and a few other applications.
3. Colorizing the stop sign, note, and caution alert icons.
Now Fun does not do this.
4. Colorizing the mini-icons (those tiny icons you can select in
the "Views" control panel for Finder list views) in the Finder.
Now Fun does not do this.
5. Changing the background color of windows in the Finder.
You can attempt to do this with Now Fun, but you will find that
the Finder leaves large blotches of white background behind
whenever you move an icon or scroll, so the feature is useless
with Now Fun.
6. Changing the background color of dialog boxes. Now Fun does
something similar, which is change the color of dialog box
borders. It does not change the color of dialog boxes itself.
7. Changing the colors of your menus. Now Fun! does do this.
Hurrah! In fact, I expect Now Fun! does this much better
than Greg's Buttons does, so if you want to color your menus,
I recommend Now Fun! instead.
So, Now Fun! duplicates 1/7 or 14% of the features of Greg's Buttons,
not the 90% that you originally claimed.
BTW, I do not mean to put down Now Fun!. I happen to think that
Now Fun! is a fine piece of software, and it is well worth that money
that you pay for it. I know some of the authors of the individual
modules, and although they don't get much money from it, you should
still support their work. Just don't tell me (or anyone else for
that matter) that Now Fun! duplicates the functionality of Greg's
Buttons, because you will be wrong.
-- Greg "Buttons" Landweber
Roy Smith
> I happen to think that Now Fun! is a fine piece of software
You know! what I think!? I think! that people who! put exclamation!
marks in innapropriate places! like the names! of programs deserve! to be
shot! Not to mention! that Now Fun! sounds like a kind! of Chinese noodle!
dish!
Louis Wu
gdl...@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.D. Landweber) writes:
> Many people have commented that people aren't scum, but it is just human
> nature. From dealing with shareware and reading flames on the net, it is
> no wonder that I am so cynical!
I guess it depends on where you start from. I honestly never expected to
make more than a couple of hundred dollars when I started, and I was very
pleasantly surprised. I didn't expect many to pay. Not that I didn't WANT
them to. I'm easily as capitalistic as the next guy. Luckily for us, most
Mac users haven't been exposed to Richard Stallman's rhetoric :-)
At any rate, what I have to say boils down to:
1) The stick is always more effective than the carrot.
2) Being a cynic cuts down on disappointments and tends to provide happy
surprises :-).
3) Being a shareware author is rewarding in it's own right. Your software,
Greg Landweber, is probably used in 20 or so countries around the world.
This is quite a trip. I've received shareware payments from some of the top
people in my field (Of course, they probably have no idea that I am in
their field).
4) Once you start looking at the money as a gift (because we're realists
now), it becomes quite a trip too. I recently bought a hot aluminum racing
bike that I never would have bought if the money was coming from my
stipend.
5) Re crippleware and notices. I decided against this for the purely
selfish and practical reason that I don't want to be bothered w/ mailing
passwords out via US mail; I can't expect everyone to be reachable by
email.
6) And finally, you made the point that if someone is not going to send you
the money one way or the other, you don't really care if he uses it. I
agree w/ this. I don't agree w/ Stallman's absurd proposition that all
software should be free, but I do enjoy contributing to a body of freely
available software. Think of all the free software available on unix
machines. Kind of neat, yes? (Even more to the point, my own software has
draws substatially from public domain sources.)
Peace and love,
pete
--
=============================================================================
Pete Keleher "Relax! Don't worry! Have a homebrew!" pe...@cs.rice.edu
=============================================================================
Elliotte Harold
|> eha...@sunspot.noao.edu writes:
|> > This is neither capitalistic nor true. Under capitalism I try to
|> >maximize my profits. I fail to see how I do that by paying for something
|> >I can get for free.
|>
|> By that logic, it's perfectly OK to just make copies of Microsoft
|> Word for every Mac in your office. You can get it for free, so obviously
|> paying for it won't maximize your profits. There is a difference between
|> "can" and "may".
Absolutely true! This is the logic of capitalism, at least to
zeroth order. This is why software piracy is so rampant today. There
are other effects of first and higher orders such as the possibility
of the SPA banging down your door and the desire to support future
development which may help you maximize your profits in the long run.
There are also non-capitalist corrections to this model such as a
desire to make sure the programmers can eat since we do not, after all,
live in a purely capitalistic society.
|> > I am not aware of any case that has gone to court involving the use
|> > of shareware without payment.
|>
|> Why must the definition of what's right and what's wrong depend on
|> the outcome of a legal battle?
Who said it does? Certainly not me. But the definition of right and
wrong no more rests on a bunch of Usenetters screaming about what
is self-evident than it does on what Congress (or Parliament or the Knesset
or substitute your local legislative body) has codified into law.
However the law does impose a number of very practical and real
obligations on us regardless of whether those obligations are right,
wrong, or indifferent.
|> In many small towns it's not uncommon to see
|> a stack of newspapers in front of a store with a box next to it with a slot
|> on top to put your coin in when you take a paper. There is absolutely
|> nothing to keep you from taking a newspaper without paying for it, yet
|> everybody understands that the papers are there to be sold. Picking the top
|> one up and reading the front page before you decide if you want to buy it is
|> generally considered to be within the bounds of "what's right", as long as
|> you put it back neatly should you decide you didn't want it after all. What
|> better analogy to shareware could there be? Do you realy think just taking
|> a paper without paying for it doesn't constitute theft? You may never get
|> caught (and if you do, it'll certainly not be worth anybody's time to drag
|> you into court), the value of the item stolen is pretty small, maybe even
|> "everybody does it", but it's still theft.
There is one big difference here. I take something
tangible by taking the newspaper. There is one less newspaper to
sell to other customers or return to the publisher. If I copy
a piece of shareware I have in no way reduced the ability of the
author to sell it to others.
Roy Smith
> I take something tangible by taking the newspaper. There is one less
> newspaper to sell to other customers or return to the publisher. If I
> copy a piece of shareware I have in no way reduced the ability of the
> author to sell it to others.
This seems to be the commonly believed myth, and goes right to the
heart of the whole idea of copyright and intellectual property. There is a
lot more to a newspaper than the paper and ink. Let's assume I write a
program, the total market for which is X copies. If the only way to get a
copy of the program is to buy it, I'll sell X copies. If you give a copy to
one of my potential customers, I'll only be able to sell X-1 copies. You
have, in a very real and tangible sense, reduced my ability to sell the
program.
In the case of the newspapers, do you honestly think that you havn't
done anything wrong if you pick up a copy of the paper, photocopy the whole
thing, and then carefully and neatly return the original to the stack, ready
to be sold to another customer? The only reason this analogy breaks down is
because the cost to copy the newspaper exceeds the cost of the newspaper
itself, so no sane capitalist would want to do it.
Michael K.
I know that by copying software you think that you shrink the viable market
for software, but perhaps not. Take me for instance, I cannot afford a copy of
MacromindDirector (I'll live without it but...), now this software costs I
belive about $1,000. I could do amazing things with it, but I will never do it
because I can;t get the software. Now if I copy the software I can create the
animations I've always wanted, and NO the software company gets no money, but of
course the other way around, I don't create the animations and Macromind STILL
doesn't get the money.
Michael K.
Ingemar Ragnemalm
gdl...@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.D. Landweber) writes:
>I do not promise free upgrades, printed manuals, or floppy disks, and I
>specifically say so in my documentation files. People often incorrectly
>assume that when they pay for shareware, they must get something in return.
>In my opinion, people should register for shareware because they like the
>program sitting on their hard disk, not to get a free subscription.
In an ideal world, that would work, but in an ideal world, communism
would work too. Yes, those who use should pay, but it's up to us authors
to find good ways to encourage them.
I send a little manual and a floppy with a souped-up version of my program,
plus a bunch of others. The *good* point with this is that the users really
get something after paying. If I had been able to mail the return package
promptly, a procedure like this could be good both for me and for shareware
in general.
The bad side is that I do it in my spare time, so in certain periods I get
a big "to do" pile. (If there are some users out there waiting for a letter
from me, it's coming. I've finally gotten everything in order again...)
I don't, however, offer free upgrades. first, the fee is low, so sending
out upgrades would eat up the little profit I have in no time. Second, I
just can't promise that I will make any PowerPC-specific version, or any
version that runs under system 8.0 - though I will try if I can.
I think shareware authors should at least send a postcard, confirming that
the payment has arrived, so the users know that the author knows that they
have paid. Sure, we have to add a little to the fee to make up for it, but
that's life.
Actually, the biggest problem I've had with making shareware, except for
being swamped with other things so I don't have time to make the return
pack, is to cash in those *damn* american checks! Our banks charge $12 to
cash your checks. Very fun on a $10 check, and not much better on a $15 one.
I insist that paying users should get something in return, preferrably
a slightly improved version (without any "this is shareware, pay up now!"
messages), but at least notification that they now are in the authors
list of Good Users. To me that seems like good manners from our side.
--
Ingemar Ragnemalm
Dept. of Electrical Engineering ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar
..
University of Linkoping, Sweden ing...@isy.liu.se
Ingemar Ragnemalm
pe...@tatjana.rice.edu (Louis Wu) writes:
>1) The stick is always more effective than the carrot.
Hm, that's a way to put it. Some use a stick - they cripple their product
or have obnoxious reminders - to make the donkey move/users pay. I use
a carrot - I send out an enhanced version to paying users. No offense,
Greg, but you expect the donkey to move my talking to it in a friendly
voice. It's very nice to the donkey, but he won't move until he feels
like it, and lots of users won't pay, at least not as quickly.
On the other hand, humans shouldn't behave like donkeys, right?
Robert Mah
>eha...@sunspot.noao.edu writes:
>> I take something tangible by taking the newspaper. There is one less
>> newspaper to sell to other customers or return to the publisher. If I
>> copy a piece of shareware I have in no way reduced the ability of the
>> author to sell it to others.
> This seems to be the commonly believed myth, and goes right to the
>heart of the whole idea of copyright and intellectual property. There is a
>lot more to a newspaper than the paper and ink. Let's assume I write a
>program, the total market for which is X copies. If the only way to get a
>copy of the program is to buy it, I'll sell X copies. If you give a copy to
>one of my potential customers, I'll only be able to sell X-1 copies. You
>have, in a very real and tangible sense, reduced my ability to sell the
>program.
While rampent piracy will, of course, reduce gross sales for the software
publisher, not all events of piracy do so.
The fundamental difference between "stealing" intellectual property and
stealing physical property is that the former _may_ reduce expected value
while the latter definately reduces present value. The former also does
not deny use of the item while the latter does. These differences are
the reason we use copyrights and patents to protect intellectual property
while we use locks and guards to protect physical property.
But, in the end, software piracy, theft of ideas, patent infringement,
etc. is just as wrong as grand theft auto, burglery or fraud, they're just
a bit more hazy.
L.H....@lut.ac.uk
Ergo, he's doing the author of the shareware a favour, when he should really
be charging the author for distribution costs.
(IMO, shareware authors get the satisfaction of using the software they write,
and that should be enough. Any payments they receive as a result of free
distribution should be viewed as a bonus.
Heck, writing shareware is glamorous and pays. Writing FAQs aint. :-)\
L.
G.D. Landweber
>pe...@tatjana.rice.edu (Louis Wu) writes:
>
>>1) The stick is always more effective than the carrot.
>
>Hm, that's a way to put it. Some use a stick - they cripple their product
>or have obnoxious reminders - to make the donkey move/users pay. I use
>a carrot - I send out an enhanced version to paying users. No offense,
>Greg, but you expect the donkey to move my talking to it in a friendly
>voice. It's very nice to the donkey, but he won't move until he feels
>like it, and lots of users won't pay, at least not as quickly.
Actually, I expected (in the past tense) the donkey to move by talking
to it in a friendly voice. I have since learned otherwise by comparing
shareware stats with a few friends. That was the content of my original
post (beyond the offending sentence). I discovered that by simply adding
an annoying shareware message, I could increase my shareware earnings
by as much as $5000. Unfortunately, the process would make the program
more annoying both for me and the end users.
Incidentally, I was under the impression that in this metaphor, the
"carrot" was having a sweet (orange?) program that people would want
to register in the first place without any incentives. In my opinion
(which have been much flamed of late), sending out an enhanced program
to registered users is the same as crippling the freely available
version, and as such is more "stick" than "carrot".
By the way, carrots are very good for Carpal Tunelling Syndrome...
-- Greg "Buttons" Landweber
Roy Smith
-> Take me for instance, I cannot afford a copy of MacromindDirector (I'll
-> live without it but...), now this software costs I belive about $1,000. I
-> could do amazing things with it, but I will never do it because I can;t
-> get the software. Now if I copy the software I can create the animations
-> I've always wanted, and NO the software company gets no money, but of
-> course the other way around, I don't create the animations and Macromind
-> STILL doesn't get the money.
In other words, "I can't afford it, so it's OK to steal it".
Holger Skok
message DID get me to register my copy of Stuffit Lite. I had intended
to anyway, but the reminder message kept nagging and I paid up faster
than I would have without it, I'm sure.
Mind you, though, that it was easy paying for it. I just had to call up Aladdin
and give them a credit card number. It's a major pain to get money into
the US or Australia (I registered SpeedyFinder) by any other means.
Either you mail cash - not very safe - or you pay ungodly amounts for
transfers or money orders.
From my point of view that's a major difficulty to overcome when trying
to pay for shareware. And since there's only a weak incentive to paying
up - my peace of mind - the additional obstacle might explain the low
return on your invested time.
Go ahead with your nag-message. Make it big and ugly and let it pop up
often after a certain time of use. Any shareware user NOT paying her/his
fees deserves things far worse than that! Shareware is a great idea and
keeping it alive requires cooperation!
HSK
--
Sie singen das alte Entsagungslied, das Eiapopeia vom Himmel,
womit man beruhigt, wenn es greint, das Volk, den grossen Luemmel.
Ein neues Lied, ein besseres Lied, oh Freunde, will ich Euch dichten,
Wir wollen hier auf Erden schon das Himmelreich errichten. ... H. Heine
Robert Mah
>umk...@mcs.drexel.edu (Michael K.) writes:
>-> Take me for instance, I cannot afford a copy of MacromindDirector (I'll
>-> live without it but...), now this software costs I belive about $1,000. I
>-> could do amazing things with it, but I will never do it because I can;t
>-> get the software. Now if I copy the software I can create the animations
>-> I've always wanted, and NO the software company gets no money, but of
>-> course the other way around, I don't create the animations and Macromind
>-> STILL doesn't get the money.
>In other words, "I can't afford it, so it's OK to steal it".
This may seem like picking nits, but software piracy is _not_ theft. It
is copyright infringement. Both are, in my view wrong, but there is a big
difference between the two in the eyes of the law. Hell, in some
countries, the concept doesn't even exist and isn't a crime.
J. S. Greenfield
>
> More importantly I feel no "obligation" to pay for shareware.
>I may choose to do so for various reasons such as supporting further
>development, getting better support, unlocking new features,
>or removing annoying shareware dialogs. However I am in no way
>"obligated" to do so. I am not aware of any case that has gone to
>court involving the use of shareware without payment. However I suspect
>that if one ever does reach a judge it will be dismissed before
>you can say "shareware fee." You have made your software freely
>available for all to use. You cannot then turn around and demand
>that you be paid for it. Some people may choose to send you money,
>but that's by their choice, not by legal obligation.
>
> It is possible that if a particular piece of shareware displayed
>an introductory message that spelled out a limited license agreement
>in a dialog box with buttons for "I agree" and "I do not agree"
>(OK and Cancel in normal Mac parlance) before it ran, then you
>MIGHT have a license agreement that would hold up in court. However
>without any such agreement the only protection you have is that
>provided against unauthorized copying by copyright law, most of
>which protection you've waived by making it freely available on
>the net.
I don't mean any personal offense, Elliotte, but I've noticed that you
consistently post alleged statements of fact on intellectual property law
(when the issues arise) without any disclaimers about your lack of
expertise or actual knowledge about these matters. (I have surmised
from your posts that you do not have any particular expertise in this
area.)
Though I am no expert, I seriously doubt that your argument makes any
sense, legally.
The fact of the matter is that shareware authors distribute their
copyrighted software with a restricted license, and many rights reserved.
I am aware of no provisions of copyright law, established by either
statute of precedent, that disallow shareware-style restrictions.
If you are aware of any such provisions, I'd be very anxious to learn of
them.
In reality, the main legal issue would appear to hinge on some basic
principles of the Uniform Commercial Code that restrict one's ability
to deliver goods (that have already been ordered or purchased!) along
with a unilaterally established contract governing the transaction.
(For example, the shrinkwrap license where you buy the goods first,
and then are told "If you keep these goods, you agree to the terms
of this license.")
There is undoubtedly a potential argument to be made that a shareware
license, as it is typically distributed, is unenforceable under these
principles of the UCC. As far as I can tell, however, this has to do
with actually taking possession of the goods--not when you first use them.
As such, I don't think there is any reasonable legal argument to be made
suggesting that a license displayed on a splash screen (and explicit "I
agree" or "I do not agree" responses) is any more or any less likely to
be ruled enforceable than a license distributed in some other normal
manner.
Furthermore, in the absence of any close analogies that have been
addressed by the law, it's all basically conjecture as to how this might
be treated.
You have conjectured that shareware licenses are, in general, not
enforceable. One could just as easily conjecture that they can be, in
many cases.
All that said, I agree that the law makes very little difference, since it
would be rare to find a situation in which a shareware license were
pragmatically enforceable, even if it were enforceable in principle.
--
J. S. Greenfield gre...@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
Laurent Gasser
[edited] (previous post)
|>
|> >In other words, "I can't afford it, so it's OK to steal it".
|>
|> This may seem like picking nits, but software piracy is _not_ theft. It
|> is copyright infringement. Both are, in my view wrong, but there is a big
|> difference between the two in the eyes of the law. Hell, in some
|> countries, the concept doesn't even exist and isn't a crime.
|>
You have beautiful interpretation and word for simply denying any
value to somebody else's work for living. Moreover, if you really
mean that the law is the Truth and the Good...
--
Laurent Gasser (gas...@dma.epfl.ch)
I know very few ideas worth dying for, none is worth killing.
Mason L. Bliss
useful shareware program. What it does is throw up a registration screen
when you start up. The screen can't be dismissed for something like ten
seconds, which as we all know is a painful and horrific amount of time to
wait... :)
This doesn't reduce the functionality of the program at all, and before long
it's going to drive me into paying...
--
Mason L. Bliss "Peepshow, Creepshow, where'd you get those eyes?"
ma...@cis.umassd.edu Mason...@fourd.com s147...@umassd.edu
I R A Aggie
wrote:
> eha...@sunspot.noao.edu writes:
> > I take something tangible by taking the newspaper. There is one less
> > newspaper to sell to other customers or return to the publisher. If I
> > copy a piece of shareware I have in no way reduced the ability of the
> > author to sell it to others.
>
> This seems to be the commonly believed myth, and goes right to the
> heart of the whole idea of copyright and intellectual property. There is a
> lot more to a newspaper than the paper and ink. Let's assume I write a
> program, the total market for which is X copies. If the only way to get a
> copy of the program is to buy it, I'll sell X copies. If you give a copy to
> one of my potential customers, I'll only be able to sell X-1 copies. You
> have, in a very real and tangible sense, reduced my ability to sell the
> program.
This presumes that the "freebie" copy is given to someone who *would*
buy the program.
There are several paths that this "freebie" copy can go:
1) for one reason or another, the software is lacking, and ends up in
the trashcan. This may be a plus, as you don't have a disappointed
customer who may stay away from future products.
2) the software is so good, the person(s) want a real copy, with real
documentation.
3) some people collect these "freebies". They have no need for them,
and never use them but once or twice, to check them out. Evenutally,
the "freebie" ends up on a backup disk gathering dust.
Anyone counting 3) as a "lost" sale is like the guy who buys Apple stock
at $30/share, watches it soar to $70/share, and then markets turns sour
and the stock comes back to $32/share. Then he complains that he lost
$38/share. Yeah, right.
James
Ken Linger
>Anyone counting 3) as a "lost" sale is like the guy who buys Apple stock
>at $30/share, watches it soar to $70/share, and then markets turns sour
>and the stock comes back to $32/share. Then he complains that he lost
>$38/share. Yeah, right.
>James
That would never happen to Apple stock, though.
Ken
Alan DeGuzman
[stuff deleted]
>Go ahead with your nag-message. Make it big and ugly and let it pop up
>often after a certain time of use. Any shareware user NOT paying her/his
>fees deserves things far worse than that! Shareware is a great idea and
>keeping it alive requires cooperation!
>HSK
I second that! If the pop-up screen is such an annoyance, then don't use the
software. Note how the simplest solutions often elude us . . .
--
Alan A. DeGuzman
Calculus&Mathematica Hobbes: "Do you believe there is a God?"
DISCLAIMER: "The University Calvin: "Of course I do. There's someone out
can't afford my opinions." to get me!"
mathew
>The best shareware stick I've seen is the one used by ZipIt. It's a really
>useful shareware program. What it does is throw up a registration screen
>when you start up. The screen can't be dismissed for something like ten
>seconds, which as we all know is a painful and horrific amount of time to
>wait... :)
>This doesn't reduce the functionality of the program at all, and before long
>it's going to drive me into paying...
Well, it made me throw the software away after the second time I tried
it out. Unstuff/PC may be a bit ropey, but it basically works, so I'll
just avoid using any Zip archives until the Info-Zip project reaches the Mac.
mathew
David Hayes
Pete Keleher <pe...@cs.rice.edu> wrote
> I don't agree w/ Stallman's absurd proposition that all
> software should be free, but I do enjoy contributing to a body of freely
> available software. Think of all the free software available on unix
> machines. Kind of neat, yes? (Even more to the point, my own software has
> draws substatially from public domain sources.)
I'm glad you are so fond of the free software available to the Unix world.
However, you are mistaken in your belief that you contribute to it as a
shareware author.
1. The free Unix code you admire is distributed as source code. How do you
distribute your shareware?
2. The free Unix code can, in most instances, be reused by any other
programmer. In most cases, all that is required is acknowledgement of
the contribution of prior authors. Free code under the GNU General Public
License is somewhat more encumbered, but it can still be reused. Almost
all of the free Unix authors prohibit reuse of their code in commercial
programs.
3. Shareware is not "free", nor "freely available". Shareware is a commercial
program, for which the author requires payment, that happens to use a
non-traditional distribution channel.
I wrote some of the original code in the GNU "diff" program. (It has since
been replaced by other code.) I have also written several programs available
from the "comp.sources.unix" archives. The GNU program is of course covered
by the GPL. My other works I explicitly gave to the public domain. When your
code is available IN SOURCE, for NO DOLLARS, and can be reused by others,
then you have made a contribution.
David Hayes mer...@lerami.lerctr.org
--
David S. Hayes mer...@lerami.lerctr.org
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Alex Pournelle
There are many people making very good shareware products that deserve a
second and third look. Slamming their efforts is a waste of time and
insults all the work of the authors.
To highlight one of my favourite *ware products, look at Fractint for
the PC. This program is more feature rich, updated quicker than, and
generally more impressive than many commercial products. It's also freeware,
which makes it even more astonishing.
Not to ignore fine Mac S/W titles, e.g. MaxAppleZoom, SCSI Probe, the
old HierDA, etc. Yes, I try to send in money when I use a product and I
feel guilty when I can't.
--Alex
--
Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker
Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others
...elroy!grian!alex; voice: (818) 791-7979
fax: (818) 794-2297 bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 2400/12/3
Louis Wu
mer...@lerami.lerctr.org (David Hayes) writes:
> In article <PETE.93A...@tatjana.rice.edu>,
> Pete Keleher <pe...@cs.rice.edu> wrote
> > I don't agree w/ Stallman's absurd proposition that all
> > software should be free, but I do enjoy contributing to a body of free
> 1. The free Unix code you admire is distributed as source code. How do you
> distribute your shareware?
> 3. Shareware is not "free", nor "freely available". Shareware is a commerc
> program, for which the author requires payment, that happens to use a
> non-traditional distribution channel.
Yes, this is the official line, but it's really crap. I am deeply greatful
to the many people who have register for my app, but they registered
because of their own sense of honor and to encourage me, not because I
*require* them to via the shareware system. I have no means of enforcing
such a requirement, and I choose not to cripple my app w/ annoying notices.
Far more people use my app w/o paying for than those that do pay for it, so
the main "contribution" of my app is to those that get it free. Forget the
legal mumbo-jumbo, this is the reality. In this sense I am contributing to
the mac community much more someone who hooks users w/ a free product and
then takes it commercial...but I digress.
I agree that putting the source under the GNU license would be even more
useful, but I'm a capitalist at heart...
> I wrote some of the original code in the GNU "diff" program. (It has since
> been replaced by other code.) I have also written several programs availab
> from the "comp.sources.unix" archives. The GNU program is of course covere
> by the GPL. My other works I explicitly gave to the public domain. When yo
> code is available IN SOURCE, for NO DOLLARS, and can be reused by others,
> then you have made a contribution.
Again, crap. You have made a real contribution, and we thank you for it.
However, I would venture to guess that people have gotten far more utility
out of my program w/o paying for it than people have gotten from yours. You
can continue to say that this utility is meaningless because these people
are legally stealing from me, but this is what you buy into when you
release software under the shareware system.
Duncan Coward
|>you'll be disappointed. (There are exceptions, of course - one author
|>I know says he brought in about $5K, which is helpful when you're a
|>doctoral student. Of course, this was over a product life cycle of a
|>couple of years.)
|
|Greg's Buttons is doing much better than that the author you know,
|and yes, I am a doctoral student, too.
Does the IRS/Inland Revenue know about this? :)
This is a tedious argument, and I suppose I should let it die instead of
adding fuel to the flames, but...
Look at the facts. People will pay if they think the shareware they are using
is *useful*. I'd imagine that Compact Pro and StuffIt Lite are the two most
registered shareware products -- they are used frequently and are useful.
Greg's Buttons is nice, cute even (I had it on my Mac at home for about a
week), but it's not useful.
I have registered less than a dozen shareware products. This isn't because
I'm "scum", but because I've only regularly used only a few of them. There
are some that obviously have had a lot of effort put into them (and I'd
include Greg's Buttons in this category) but if they're not useful, I'm not
going to pay for them.
Lets look at the facts. As a shareware author (not PD or postcardware, et al)
you hope to make some money. You may have produced your product
for your own self-indulgence (a college project perhaps) and decided to get
some $$$ (perhaps turned down by a commercial publisher or not even
bothering being turned down and aiming straight at the 'net for shareware
fees]. You may have produced it with the intention of making money. Either
way, you want money. [This is fact number one.]
As shareware users, people want the flexibilty of trying out a product before
they have to spend money on it (especially if it subsequently becomes
apparent that it doesn't really fit the bill). [This isn't fact, just fancilful suggestion
trying to con all you authors that shareware users are good-at-heart :)] The
reality is that *most* shareware users want cheap, usable software. [This is fact
number two.] This is where (IMHO) shareware authors need to exercise some
careful reasoning.
If a product is too useable (ie, fully functioning) and not hampered by irritating
signs of being a shareware product (registration boxes everytime it starts up,
built-in expiry, etc), then a lot of its users will ask "what's in it for by paying the
shareware fee". Now, before you say <moral-grounds>|<support-grounds>|
<enhancement-grounds>|<you get the idea>, most people want cheap
useable software -- they've now got it.
Of course, there's the other extreme, is it's too limited or irritating, people will
trash it and you'll get nothing.
Now, although I've got my own ideas, I don't know the answer. But I do know
one thing, calling me "scum" (and since I am a shareware user and I haven't
paid for using Greg's Buttons, I feel that the statement was also aimed at me)
I won't be registering any of G.D. Landweber's shareware offerings. Sorry Greg,
but you should learn to play politics (ie, don't voice derogative statements at
your customers).
--Duncan
================================================================================
Micrognosis 63 Queen Victoria Street LONDON EC4N 4UD
Email: dco...@micrognosis.co.uk Phone: +44-71-815-5256 Fax: +44-71-815-5201
================================================================================
Rich Siegel
>
>Far more people use my app w/o paying for than those that do pay for it, so
>the main "contribution" of my app is to those that get it free. Forget the
>legal mumbo-jumbo, this is the reality. In this sense I am contributing to
>the mac community much more someone who hooks users w/ a free product and
>then takes it commercial...but I digress.
Do you mean like Aladdin Systems with StuffIt? I make a point of reminding
you that in spite of the fact that there's a commercial product with
superior functionality, the company has made a point of continuing
development and distribution of high-quality free- and shareware programs...
R.
--
Rich Siegel Internet: sie...@world.std.com
Senior Software Engineer GCC Technologies
"Unfortunately, her brain doesn't work like one could reasonably expect it to."
Bryan Morse
>In article <PETE.93Au...@tatjana.rice.edu> pe...@tatjana.rice.edu (Louis Wu) writes:
>>In this sense I am contributing to
>>the mac community much more someone who hooks users w/ a free product and
>>then takes it commercial...but I digress.
>
>Do you mean like Aladdin Systems with StuffIt?
>development and distribution of high-quality free- and shareware programs...
What about Red Ryder? Boomerang? BeHierarchic? BBEdit?
--
Bryan Morse University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
mo...@cs.unc.edu Department of Computer Science
Rich Siegel
>In article <CBLMM...@world.std.com> sie...@world.std.com (Rich Siegel) writes:
>>In article <PETE.93Au...@tatjana.rice.edu> pe...@tatjana.rice.edu (Louis Wu) writes:
>>>In this sense I am contributing to
>>>the mac community much more someone who hooks users w/ a free product and
>>>then takes it commercial...but I digress.
>>
>>Do you mean like Aladdin Systems with StuffIt?
>>... the company has made a point of continuing
>>development and distribution of high-quality free- and shareware programs...
>
>What about Red Ryder? Boomerang? BeHierarchic? BBEdit?
Them too. :-)
J. S. Greenfield
>When your
>code is available IN SOURCE, for NO DOLLARS, and can be reused by others,
>then you have made a contribution.
Ahh. So David Hayes is the arbiter of what constitutes a contribution and
what does not, eh?
Nobody's interested, my friend...
Michael Peirce
In article <CBJqu...@micrognosis.co.uk> (comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system), dco...@micrognosis.co.uk (Duncan Coward) writes:
> |>If you're doing shareware for anything except the spare pocket change,
> |>you'll be disappointed. (There are exceptions, of course - one author
> |>I know says he brought in about $5K, which is helpful when you're a
> |>doctoral student. Of course, this was over a product life cycle of a
> |>couple of years.)
> |
> |Greg's Buttons is doing much better than that the author you know,
> |and yes, I am a doctoral student, too.
>
>
> Does the IRS/Inland Revenue know about this? :)
That's up to the undividual shareware author of course, but I do list
my shareware income as income for tax purposes. I also collect and
pay sales tax for those who register AppSizer in the state of California.
--
-- Michael Peirce -- pei...@outpost.sf-bay.org
-- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
-- -- San Jose, California USA 95117
-- Makers of: -- voice: +1.408.244.6554 fax: +1.408.244.6882
-- Smoothie -- AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
Mario Herodotus
Greg "buttons" says:
>I said that Mac shareware users are scum (generally). By (generally), I
>naturally exclude those people who actually make an attempt to register,
>or who do not register for a definite reason (such as your complaints).
So lets stick to that issue or change the comment you made. If you mean that
generally shareware authors are scum stop defending "Gregs buttons" and
start defending your statement. Your're taking this too personally.
>I do not promise free upgrades, printed manuals, or floppy disks, and I
>specifically say so in my documentation files. People often incorrectly
>assume that when they pay for shareware, they must get something in return.
>In my opinion, people should register for shareware because they like the
>program sitting on their hard disk, not to get a free subscription.
The programs I was speaking of did make those promises. If I am promised a
free upgrade by the author that should be delivered, so should manuals and
updates on floppy if they were also promised. Again your statement said
Mac shareware users are scum (generally), maybe you should change that to
read "Greg's Buttons" users are scum (generally). Then we can discuss just
your program and the people who stiffed you.
Mario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't afford my own opinions, and DEC won't pay for them either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Herodotus (CX03 2/N12) | m_her...@csc32.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation |
Customer Support Center | or m_herodotus%csc3...@decwrl.dec.com
305 Rockrimmon Blvd. |
Colorado Springs, CO 80919 | or ...!decwrl!csc32.dec.com!m_herodotus
|
(800) 354-9000 Ext 25520 | or CSC32::M_HERODOTUS
[direct line (719) 592-5520] |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Herodotus
>>>>In this sense I am contributing to
>>>>the mac community much more someone who hooks users w/ a free product and
>>>>then takes it commercial...but I digress.
>>>
>>>Do you mean like Aladdin Systems with StuffIt?
>>>... the company has made a point of continuing
>>>development and distribution of high-quality free- and shareware programs...
>>
>>What about Red Ryder? Boomerang? BeHierarchic? BBEdit?
>
>Them too. :-)
>
>R.
I consider these to be two seperate groups. What Aladdin and Red Rider/White
Knight (Freesoft) did/do is different from Boomerang and possiblly
BeHierarchic, and BBEdit (I don't know how the last two became commercial).
With Stuffit and Red Ryder the product you registered as shareware was the
product you had to upgrade to as commercial. With Boomerang, you might only
want Boomerang but you got stuck paying for a dozen other utilities you might
not want. Same thing goes for the shareware Finder Palette that became Launch
Pad in Fifth Generation's Public Utilities. You may not want or need the
whole package but now you gotta pay for the whole package even though you
were promised on free upgrade when you registered.
If you can go commercial with your product, power to you. If you give your
registered users an upgrade to the commercial product you're doing even
better. But if you promised them upgrades for free when they registered that
shareware version (the version that made your product what it is today) then
deliver on that promise, don't offer them an upgrade to some "package deal"
they may have little use for (I am referring specifically to Finder Palette
here and I mention the name because I am sick of the way Fifth Generation and
Anchor Beech Software have handled this situation so far).
Mario
PS I am not scum but I am often mistaken for scum and treated like scum.
G.D. Landweber
In article <1993Aug13.0...@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> m_her...@csc32.dec.com writes:
>So lets stick to that issue or change the comment you made. If you mean that
>generally shareware authors are scum stop defending "Gregs buttons" and
>start defending your statement. Your're taking this too personally.
If you have been reading the thread, you will notice that I indeed have been
trying to defend my original statement at every attempt. That original
statement was NOT specific to my shareware product, and the only reason I
mentioned that I am the author of Greg's Buttons was to lend weight to my
claim (i.e., by saying that I am the author of a popular shareware program,
so I might have an idea about how shareware works).
In response, a great many people misinterpreted my post, thinking that
I was complaining about my low shareware earnings (I am not and never have
been). They then went on to explain why they think people would not
register my product, and some of these took the form of attacks on my
program. I felt obliged to defend my program, particularly as many of
these attacks were unjustified and incorrect.
If I am going to make a claim about the shareware community, I need data.
Otherwise, people are going to flame me for making generalizations without
any support. The reason I brought Greg's Buttons into this thread is that
I do indeed have concrete data about it, as well as about several other
shareware programs written by my friends. So, you might say that my
conclusions only apply to users of these few shareware products, but it
is my believe that I have a large enough sample to reflect the mac shareware
community as a whole.
-- Greg "Buttons" Landweber
gdl...@cus.cam.ac.uk
I R A Aggie
John_...@smtp.esl.com (John Covele) wrote:
> Source code is totally useless to your average computer USER.
Horse hockey. If it's reasonably well put together (Makefile or
simple compilation), there's nothing to it as long as there's
a compiler available. On our unix machine, I've compiled:
zsh, perl, several image viewers, ps2eps, mcvert
without a hitch. My total knowledge of C: zilch. But then again,
I almost always read the README file that usually includes
step-by-step instructions about compiling, and installing said
code.
James
Robert Mah
>> Source code is totally useless to your average computer USER.
To which stri...@masig.fsu.edu (I R A Aggie) replies:
>Horse hockey. If it's reasonably well put together (Makefile or simple
>compilation), there's nothing to it as long as there's a compiler
>available. On our unix machine, I've compiled:
>zsh, perl, several image viewers, ps2eps, mcvert
>without a hitch. My total knowledge of C: zilch. But then again, I
>almost always read the README file that usually includes step-by-step
>instructions about compiling, and installing said code.
The key phrase is "as long as there's a compiler available". No Mac
comes with a compiler. For what its worth, John is correct. The
vast majority of users don't want to compile their own utils and don't
care if the code is there or not.
I personally think it is A Good Thing (tm) if authors include source
as that tends to help cut down on "how do I write INITs" traffic on
comp.sys.mac.programmer.
J. S. Greenfield
>Same thing goes for the shareware Finder Palette that became Launch Pad in
>Fifth Generation's Public Utilities.
For anybody who is confused, "LaunchPad" is still my trademark. FGS' program
has no relationship to me or to my program. Their use of a confusingly similar
name is being addressed.