brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (08/17/85)
Why do people think that programmers and software companies have some "duty" to write software for them? These companies go in, take risks and fill a need. because of circumstances, they don't fill the need properly - for example they make their software less convenient by copy protecting it. People seem to talk as though they think the world should run their way and no other. If the copy protection truly degrades the value of the product, then it's only the company that loses. All this talk of the consumer losing is garbage. At worst, the consumer breaks even because he or she doesn't buy the software. Remember, the choice is software on terms acceptable to the author, or no software at all. >Many software companies appear to think they have the right to make millions >with only little capital cost and effort (compared to, say, hardware >manufacturers or chip designers). I have heard numerous complaints that the >software industry "cannot survive" without such profits. I do not believe >this. The more appropriate model for the software industry is the >publishing industry. Publishing houses still make a great deal of money, >yet do not speak of "renting books", nor charge ruinous prices for them. > The book industry isn't like the software industry at all. Borland, the low price king of the software industry, sells Turbo Pascal with a paperback book and an inexpensive floppy for $70. Everbody said Kahn couldn't do this but he managed. Cheap books are a few dollars. Do people think this difference exists without a reason? Software needs training, support and massive advertising. Anybody can read a book. Software is used time and time again. Books are usually read once. Software marketing is a tooth-and-nail fight in a new industry with large companies going under at a rate of several per year. The book industry is stable. Software is often written by teams of people using expensive equipment over long periods of time. Books are written by one person with a typewriter, usually involving fewer man-years. There are close to a dozen major computer shows to attend. The ABA is once a year. Software is updated. Books are not. I could go on and on. >I have heard Mr. Learner parrot claims by the organization sponsored by >Lotus (and other like-minded software companies) that some massive fraction >of programs in use are pirated. I also do not belive this. I purchased Piracy may be blown up a bit, but there is a lot of corporate piracy. In any company with any quantity of buraucracy, it's 100 times easier to steal an extra copy of a program than it is to put in a request, get approval, send out a purchase order and get the new copy shipped in. If just for the simple reason that you're up right away with a stolen copy. >Final Word, Wordstar 2000, and Cornerstone voluntarily REMOVE copy >protection from their products, in response to customer complaints? Do >Infocom and Mark of the Unicorn seem like companies that want to go out of >business? Clearly there is some disagreement within the industry about the >necessity for copy protection. This is what the free market is all about. Some companies feel that in the long run, having the easiest to use product will provide the most sales. The market decides. The real answer to all this is to spit on theives when you meet them. When you hear somebody talking about stealing software, confront them and say, "You're a god-damned thief!" Tell them you make your living writing software, and that the theft they perform creates the need for copy protection and makes it worse for everybody. If theft were not socially acceptable because the theif doesn't actually see the victim, things would go a lot better. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
hjm@ihlpf.UUCP (h.moore) (08/21/85)
> Why do people think that programmers and software companies have some "duty" > to write software for them? These companies go in, take risks and fill a need. Who ever said you have a "duty" to write software for anybody! You don't have to write anything for sale; when you do however, you DO have a responsibility to write programs that work at least as well as their advertising! You DO have a duty to produce software that doesn't drive your customers up a wall because they just found out that they HAVE to pay more money for a new (copy-protected) copy of the "SUPER_DO" integrated somethingorother when their copy is damaged. > because of circumstances, they don't fill the need properly - for example they > make their software less convenient by copy protecting it. People seem to talk > as though they think the world should run their way and no other. If the copy > protection truly degrades the value of the product, then it's only the company > that loses. All this talk of the consumer losing is garbage. At worst, the Oh really? You don't think the consumer (which may be a company) looses anything when they have to wait some unknown period of time when they have to send in their disk[ette][s] for a [hopefully] working copy? Perhaps you think it funny to watch a consumer with a 20Meg system still having to shuffle diskettes, not because the disk is full, but because they CAN'T put their (copy-protected) programs on it? > consumer breaks even because he or she doesn't buy the software. Remember, > the choice is software on terms acceptable to the author, or no software at all. > (Who is that man with the rubber hose?!) > >Many software companies appear to think they have the right to make millions > >with only little capital cost and effort (compared to, say, hardware > >manufacturers or chip designers). I have heard numerous complaints that the > >software industry "cannot survive" without such profits. I do not believe Here I disagree (somewhat). Software companies (publishers, writers etc.) SHOULD be able to make millions if their product warrants it. I don't think the consumer should pay for that profit through decreased utility, danger of sudden loss of the product (no back-ups, remember) or the lack of any right to return a product when you discover that one of the functions does not work correctly with their system configuration (hard to test it with the shrink-wrap on). > >this. The more appropriate model for the software industry is the > >publishing industry. Publishing houses still make a great deal of money, > >yet do not speak of "renting books", nor charge ruinous prices for them. > > > > The book industry isn't like the software industry at all. Borland, the > low price king of the software industry, sells Turbo Pascal with a paperback > book and an inexpensive floppy for $70. Everbody said Kahn couldn't do this > but he managed. Cheap books are a few dollars. Do people think this > difference exists without a reason? [ ... ]. > There are close to a dozen major computer shows to attend. The ABA is once > a year. Software is updated. Books are not. I could go on and on. Books don't usually cost $400 a crack either. If they did, do you think we'd still have libraries? I bet there'd be one heck of a push by publishers to get rid of them (just think of all the lost revenue every time a book was checked out by a library card holder, not to mention all those who just walk in off the street and read a book there!) or maybe have toll libraries! < [ ... ] > > >Final Word, Wordstar 2000, and Cornerstone voluntarily REMOVE copy > >protection from their products, in response to customer complaints? Do > >Infocom and Mark of the Unicorn seem like companies that want to go out of > >business? Clearly there is some disagreement within the industry about the > >necessity for copy protection. > > This is what the free market is all about. Some companies feel that in > the long run, having the easiest to use product will provide the most > sales. The market decides. > > > The real answer to all this is to spit on theives when you meet them. > When you hear somebody talking about stealing software, confront them and > say, "You're a god-damned thief!" Tell them you make your living writing Yeah, that (or something like it) might help some. > software, and that the theft they perform creates the need for copy > protection and makes it worse for everybody. If theft were not socially > acceptable because the theif doesn't actually see the victim, things would > go a lot better. > > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Needless to say, nothing said here should be taken as the opinions of anyone with even the slightest idea of what they were about to say. Hank Moore, ihnp4!ihlpf!hjm AT&T NETWORK SYSTEMS, Indian Hill Naperville, illinois
hom@houxm.UUCP (H.MORRIS) (08/23/85)
Another thing is that programmers expect to make a living whereas writers are conditioned by the reality that 1 in 100 really good writers will make a decent living.
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/31/85)
> Another thing is that programmers expect to make a living whereas > writers are conditioned by the reality that 1 in 100 really good > writers will make a decent living. 1 in 100 good novellists. Most of us would be called technical writers if you want to carry the analogy further. We may work on marketable stuff on the side, but so do many tech writers and drafters. I'd say that 1 in 100 software authors (as opposed to programmers) can make a living off it. Maybe less. Remember the sizes of the markets involved. -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076