cthulhu@athena.MIT.EDU (04/13/86)
From: cthulhu@athena.MIT.EDU I really with I could understand people who defend prices of $100 for a paint package, but it just doesn't make sense to me, and I'm a software developer myself. Software piracy is bad, but it is undeniably deserved. Great, says the purchaser of a spiffy new Amiga, look at all the things I can do, and for -only- $1295. Depleted wallet in hand, he goes to his local computer store to buy some software. First, he wants to draw pretty pictures. $100. Then he might want to program in a decent language. $300 more. Next, it might be nice to word process something. $100, please. That`s $500, just to do THREE THINGS. Hardly even justifies multitasking, especially since you can't with any of the evilly copy-protected, resource-stealing software... Would you buy a car if it cost half the car's price to go out and drive around the block. There is absolutely no excuse. It takes more effort, and probably more talent, to write a book, yet they're sold for $3. But they cost more to make, say the apologists. Sure, each book may cost $0.10 to produce, while software costs, say $2. But they don`t sell as many copies, they whine. Not always so. Many programs now sell more copies than books. We're paying the cost of software piracy, that's why the prices are so high. Wrongo. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Without software, the machines are useless, and people feel ripped off since they can`t pay the exorbitant prices. Anger is wonderful at removing moral qualms. There is no solution to the piracy problem. Protection only hurts legitimate users. The best thing companies could do is to lower their prices to a reasonable level where people would begin to be able to afford the software, and use their computers. Perhaps then legality would win out over expedience when it comes to acquiring software. $69.95, hah! Its a nice program, WITH the backup disks, it might be worth $25. Borland proved the feasibility of lowered prices, but now even they're moving away from it. $100 is, quite simply, insane. - Jim Reich
madd@bucsb.UUCP (madd (Madd(ly) lost in the Net....)) (04/14/86)
In message <1844@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> cthulhu@athena.MIT.EDU writes: >I really with I could understand people who defend prices of $100 for a paint >package, but it just doesn't make sense to me, and I'm a software developer >myself. Software piracy is bad, but it is undeniably deserved. Great, says >the purchaser of a spiffy new Amiga, look at all the things I can do, and for >-only- $1295. Depleted wallet in hand, he goes to his local computer store to >buy some software. First, he wants to draw pretty pictures. $100. Then >he might want to program in a decent language. $300 more. Next, it might >be nice to word process something. $100, please. That`s $500, just to do >THREE THINGS. Hardly even justifies multitasking, especially since you >can't with any of the evilly copy-protected, resource-stealing software... <text deleted> >There is absolutely no excuse. It takes more effort, >and probably more talent, to write a book, yet they're sold for $3. But >they cost more to make, say the apologists. Sure, each book may cost >$0.10 to produce, while software costs, say $2. But they don`t sell as many >copies, they whine. Not always so. Many programs now sell more copies than >books. We're paying the cost of software piracy, that's why the prices are >so high. Wrongo. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Without >software, the machines are useless, and people feel ripped off since they >can`t pay the exorbitant prices. Anger is wonderful at removing moral >qualms. <text deleted> >The best thing companies could do is to lower >their prices to a reasonable level where people would begin to be able to >afford the software, and use their computers. Perhaps then legality would >win out over expedience when it comes to acquiring software. <text deleted> >$100 is, quite simply, insane. > - Jim Reich I don't know how many people agree with this, but from my experience what Jim is saying hits home. I can see why companies are asking the $100+ prices (how long may Amiga last? Unable to tell when they made it -- so make the profits NOW) but in the long run they will get ripped off. Being a developer myself (not big-time, yet, but well enough known in my hometown) as well as a semi-user (if it works, why write it myself?) I see both sides of the story. To date my favorite company is Borland. Why? They market things like Turbo Pascal (I have a CPM machine) for ~$70. WORTH MUCH MORE! Especially since there aren't any stupid fees to pay if you make something with it and want to sell it. This is only an example, other companies do much the same. But as the developer, with your sparkling, new, unique, easy-to-use, fun thingy, you want bucks, now. The way to make your money is not to sell each individual package for a lot of money, but rather just a bit less than you think people will pay for it. Why less? Read on. Nobody wants to spend more money than they have to. After only one or two software buys, the novice is quickly educated as to "good" and "bad" deals. Most often their views are that the software is fine, but was it really worth that godawful price? Let's say the user found a neat compiler selling for $50. "All these OTHER compilers are $400" he says. "There must be a catch." But, being an educated person, he asks anyway. After all, it's only $50. Alas! The program is highly regarded by a lot of people. He spends the $50 on an original (unprotected. I am a registered member of _Software_Protection_ Haters_Everywhere_, a non profit group created right now. Mail to join) instead of GASP $100 on a copying program (that may or may not work on this scheme anyway) to duplicate the $400 program. Does this sound like I don't know what I'm talking about? Wrong. I use PC's a lot and have just one copy program. The one supplied on the boot disk. I have just one compiler, the aforementioned TPascal (source-compatible w/ my CPM, UC) and very few other programs that I didn't write. I bought the CPM TPascal, and the company I work for bought the PC version, at my request. I refuse to pay those kind of prices (seen WordStar 2000 prices lately) when it costs much less to write it myself. Yet I did buy Borland's program, rather than copy it or write it myself. It's a good deal, better than it should be. Those people who can't write them may buy the cheap one because it's cheap. In my experience, many people will sacrifice quality for a good price. I have sold many programs to people I know. With just one exception they went $10 apiece, source included. There are very few illegal copies floating around, because people feel better when they paid for it. The stuff I make may not be of the same quality as a major producer's #1 program, but it's bugproof because *I* use it, fast, easy to use, and useful. Worth more than $10 (this isn't a personal opinion, I asked people). I make decent money this way. Like I said before, I understand why they want their money fast. But the other side of the coin is that they will (not might -- will) sell more copies if they keep the price down. OK, they may not make as much this way. Now, that is. A year later when the person sees a wordprocessor in his favorite store, written by XYZ company, he says "Gee, that's the company that made my compiler. It was a good deal. Probably this is too. And the price is right." Another sale. Dedicated users come because of inexpensive, useful programs. I am one. I also hope to be the company people are dedicated to. Most of the above is based on personal opinion. But in asking, I have found that many of my fellow enthusiasts agree with me. Flames back? I appreciate the other point of view. I hope there are other developers who think along the same lines, or who are infuenced by this. Let there be inexpensive software for the masses! -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ : Jim Frost : "You just gotta smile through it" : : : "The Earth is just too small and fragile : : ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd : a basket for mankind to keep all of its : : cscc71c%bostonu.bitnet@wiscvm : eggs in."--Robert A. Heinlein : : USnail: 75 Washington St : "What the hell, put 'em all in one : : Laconia, NH 03246 : basket"--Me : +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (04/16/86)
What a wonderful rationalization. "If software were cheaper, I wouldn't have to compromise my morals and I'd buy more, pirate less." All the people I know who pirate software do so regardless of the price and/or immorality. Piraters don't care whether they save $10 or $100. To them, the immorality cost of pirating is zero; and the authors and marketers of software "deserve" ZERO profit. Some software developer this flamer is; I doubt that he is currently making a living selling Amiga software at Commodore 64 prices. If you can't live with the market forces which drive the price of Amiga software, go back to an inferior but more "mature" machine. Prices for Amiga software *are* high. This is because of two factors. Presently the market is starved for software: there are few choices, and enough people have enough money to pay these prices. And there are few total buyers. Those programs the flamer talks about, selling better than books, are NOT Amiga programs (yet)! Amigaware *will* drop in price, as these factors weaken. Once you start down that path, it will control your destiny forever... Charles Poirier
kurt@fluke.UUCP (04/17/86)
1. $100 is too much for a paint program.
2. People who do not include the cost of software in their estimate of
the cost of a computer system are deluding themselves. A car without
an engine is much less expensive than an otherwise similar car with
one. But you should not buy a car without an engine and then complain
that the purchase price of the engine makes the car unaffordable.
I personally have sold computer hardware at cost because we marked up
the software. IBM gives DOS away for the cost of the manual to sell
its hardware. Hardware and software are inextricably linked.lishka@puff.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (04/18/86)
In article <1409@vax135.UUCP>, cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: > What a wonderful rationalization. "If software were cheaper, I > wouldn't have to compromise my morals and I'd buy more, pirate less." > All the people I know who pirate software do so regardless of the price > and/or immorality. Piraters don't care whether they save $10 or $100. > To them, the immorality cost of pirating is zero; and the authors and > marketers of software "deserve" ZERO profit. Some software developer > this flamer is; I doubt that he is currently making a living selling > Amiga software at Commodore 64 prices. > Well, I don't own an Amiga yet...I still work on a Com.-64 (I was one of those people who paid $300 for a Vic-20 and $400 for a 64). I have bought a few games from Electronic Arts. Except for one, they were pretty much cr*p. I am not complaining about the game idea or the amount of fun I have had playing with these things, it is just that they were pretty poorly written. For example, I once purchased the Music Construction set, thinking that it would be a nice functional product. I had some pretty bad problems. For example, no matter how I tried I could never get a dotted note to produce the correct result. And when it didn't not only did the music not play in time but also the graphics started moving out of synch with the actual music. Bad programming if you ask me. I took that program back within a week. Even worse, I bought a copy of Pinball Construction Set for my Com.-64 and was initially thrilled (I still have the program). However, at random time intervals the program quite simply dies (and locks up) and everything I've just created is lost. This might be O.K. if I could hit an icon to backup the disk from the "Construstion" mode. But no, I have to call up the disk mode, save it, then go back. Even worse, if one creates a pinball game and plays it outside of the construction set there is no way to reset the game if a ball gets stuck somewhere. You have to reboot. My point is that these are poorly written, or in the case of Pin. Con. Set "translated", programs and it insane to even pay $40 from a company that has a reputation of delivering a well made product. Every version of MCS and PCS I've used (including pirated versions) have these problems. And PCS was a program that critics called fabulous. But how functional is soemthing that destroys itself while you are using it? And although I guess I am not saying everyone should got out and pirate something (or even anyone), I think that Electronic Arts deserves whatever it gets with pirating because I feel that paying even $40 for a game that doesn't live up to its promises is ridiculous. [Hell, there are companies out there selling games at $20 list price]. Oh, by the way, I also bought Racing Destruction Set by E.A. and think that it is one of the best programs ever written (I have not found any bugs at all) and am also glad that I paid the $40. My point here is that I am not out to get at just E.A... I am out to get ANY company that produces a poorly written program and expects consumers to pay good money for it (another example is Valdocs...my father has it and found he had to do a LOT of sh*t to get it to work with his non-epson printer, only to find that if he typed in a document longer than 6 pages bugs came out all over the place. Because he writes professionally he finally switched to WordStar). Death to poorly written programs! May the well written ones live on forever! Chri Lishka U.W. Madison- comp sci student
local-info-amiga-request@ics.UCI.EDU (04/22/86)
From: Kurt Guntheroth <fluke!kurt@caip.rutgers.edu>
1. $100 is too much for a paint program.
2. People who do not include the cost of software in their estimate of
the cost of a computer system are deluding themselves. A car without
an engine is much less expensive than an otherwise similar car with
one. But you should not buy a car without an engine and then complain
that the purchase price of the engine makes the car unaffordable.
I personally have sold computer hardware at cost because we marked up
the software. IBM gives DOS away for the cost of the manual to sell
its hardware. Hardware and software are inextricably linked.kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (04/23/86)
Anyone who thinks Amiga software is overpriced obviously does not own an IBM PC or AT! $400 for Lotus 1-2-3? (Retail, I admit, but still...) I own a commodore 64 and a wonderful little spreadsheet I paid $25 retail for at Sears. My wife, who uses Lotus frequently, says this one is just as good for spreadsheet work. Amiga software is running about $100, which is still not as bad as it could be. I guess developers know business users own IBM's and they will pay almost ANYTHING. After pricing a few IBM titles you will feel much better about what you pay for Amigaware. Ever notice there is often no correlation between price and quality?