davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edu (05/20/89)
Many people have attempted to draw parallels between software upgrades
and cars. To that I respond as others have done: there is no such thing
as a disk drive that can duplicate automobiles!
Others have gone on to say that the costs of upgrade programming
should be paid by the consumers, and rightfully so. In my original message
I said that often upgrades have the same suggested retail price as the
original version. Since people who have older versions must pay EVPs for
those upgrades it means that the upgrade costs are being absorbed by only
those who have paid the upgrade penalty - not by the people who have the
new improved version at the same old price! This causes some people to
either use pirated versions until they buy what they consider to be an
advanced enough version (if they buy one at all) or to pirate newer versions
after buying an old version.
The car analogy has another flaw - if the price of one car is too
expensive you can buy a cheaper one because once you know how to drive
one car you can drive others. This doesn't hold true for software. You
have to start using new commands and even new operating systems - so
software users don't exactly have as much choice in moving, say, to a
lower cost spreadsheet.
If a publisher wants to upgrade, fine! Just put the additional
upgrade costs (if any) on the new versions and let the people who have
older versions trade them in for the new stuff and pay the difference
in cost; that way, they are paying for the original software development
and the upgrade expenses as well!
davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edunazgul@obsolete.UUCP (Kee Hinckley) (05/20/89)
Many people have attempted to draw parallels between software upgrades
and cars. To that I respond as others have done: there is no such thing
as a disk drive that can duplicate automobiles!
If someone invents a pocket laser that can open bank vaults does
that make it okay to rob banks?
I said that often upgrades have the same suggested retail price as the
original version. Since people who have older versions must pay EVPs for
those upgrades it means that the upgrade costs are being absorbed by only
those who have paid the upgrade penalty - not by the people who have the
new improved version at the same old price! This causes some people to
No, no, no. Development costs are the costs up until the product
ships. Presumably (if this company is surviving at all) it paid
those off with the first release. In the meantime they've been
doing more development. When Release 2 comes out the cost isn't
covering the cost of producing Release 1 anymore, it's covering the
cost of producing Release 2! If I expect to sell as many copies of
Release 2 as Release 1 then I can afford to charge you a minimal
upgrade charge. If on the other hand I expect that I've already
saturated the market with Release 1, I'll probably have to charge
more for an upgrade, since the number of people buying Release 2
for the first time won't offset my development costs.
I think you are confusing two things. You don't pay for software
on a per feature basis. If you did it would make sense to only have
a minimal upgrade cost (and to have the new product cost more).
You are paying for *development cost*, which may or may not be
directly related to the number of features.
either use pirated versions until they buy what they consider to be an
advanced enough version (if they buy one at all) or to pirate newer versions
after buying an old version.
All you are doing is screwing over three people - yourself, the
developer, and everyone else. When you steal software, it screws
up the developers accounting. Gee, not as many people bought the
thing as they planned. Assuming they managed to survive that (and
I know a few firms where one or two people stealing their product
could easily make the different between whether they survive or go
bankrupt) they'll now have to raise their prices next time around,
and that screws everyone else. Where do you get bit? The next time
they come out with something you really *do* need to buy.
The car analogy has another flaw - if the price of one car is too
expensive you can buy a cheaper one because once you know how to drive
one car you can drive others. This doesn't hold true for software. You
It certainly does. If you can't afford Appleworks, go get FrEDWriter.
The only cases where you won't see this is in new technologies where
there is currently only one supplier. And guess what, you don't see
it in cars there either.
have to start using new commands and even new operating systems - so
software users don't exactly have as much choice in moving, say, to a
lower cost spreadsheet.
Now we're talking look and feel issues again. Personally I have
no problem with cheap look alike clones - Apple obviously does.
If a publisher wants to upgrade, fine! Just put the additional
upgrade costs (if any) on the new versions and let the people who have
older versions trade them in for the new stuff and pay the difference
in cost; that way, they are paying for the original software development
and the upgrade expenses as well!
As I said above - the original software development costs are probably
already paid off, and if not the publisher usually does exactly what
you suggest. I recently bought upgrades to two pieces of Mac software
where the new price was substantially higher than the old (Freehand and
MacroMind Director, for what it's worth). And guess what? The upgrade
price was higher than normal too, just as I expected.
-kee
-------SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (05/21/89)
> The car analogy has another flaw - if the price of one car is too >expensive you can buy a cheaper one because once you know how to drive >one car you can drive others. This doesn't hold true for software. You >have to start using new commands and even new operating systems - so >software users don't exactly have as much choice in moving, say, to a >lower cost spreadsheet. The first time I saw 1-2-3 I hit the '/' key (what the heck, it worked in VisiCalc so it was worth a shot) and 'voila' (as it were). I COULD still "drive" :-) On the other hand Lotus 1-2-3 is an awful lot of money for the limited uses I personal have for spreadsheet software. Forgetting for the moment that the "cut-down" educational version of Lotus 1-2-3 ($40) is sufficient for my limited needs, there's Twin and VP Planner (among other one-for-one Lotus clones I've probably overlooked) to say nothing of the educational versions of Twin and VP Planner ($30 and not quite as cut-down as Lotus's educational version). Equating cars and software IS stretching things some (stealing cars is a felony which you're local district attorney will prosecute -- the taxpayers pay the tab -- while pirating software is a civil offense -- the victim has to both investigate and sue -- the victim has to win AND the pirate has to have sufficient assets to pay court costs, fines, AND compensation or the victim ends up with a serious case of the shorts), but some parts of the analogy fit better than others. If you have some patience AND focus on what you're using a computer FOR rather than whether you are using the latest "designer software," you'll generally be able to find something affordable to do what you need done (if you wait long enough, even a "wastetime" like Mario Brothers II <or some equivalent> will be readily available at a fraction of today's price). Anyone who wants to try and rationalize theft on the basis of not being wealthy can't expect much sympathy (poverty MEANS you CAN'T have it!!). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
STEVENS@SENECA.BITNET (05/21/89)
From: info-apple@BRL.MIL To: MURRAY STEVENS <STEVENS@SENECA> CC: Subj: re: RE: Piracy and EVPs >> 19 May 89 18:21:53 EDT from <davidbrierley@LYNX.NORTHEASTERN.EDU> >> >> The car analogy has another flaw - if the price of one car is too >>expensive you can buy a cheaper one because once you know how to drive >>one car you can drive others. This doesn't hold true for software. You >>have to start using new commands and even new operating systems - so >>software users don't exactly have as much choice in moving, say, to a >>lower cost spreadsheet. >The first time I saw 1-2-3 I hit the '/' key (what the heck, it worked in >VisiCalc so it was worth a shot) and 'voila' (as it were). I COULD still >"drive" :-) * Some lines deleted * >Equating cars and software IS stretching things some (stealing cars is >a felony which you're local district attorney will prosecute -- the taxpayers >pay the tab -- * more lines deleted* >Anyone who wants to try and rationalize theft on the basis of not being >wealthy can't expect much sympathy (poverty MEANS you CAN'T have it!!). >Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] >Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Well written, Murph. No wonder your a Prof. :-) One point though. I don't think that most people (including myself) were trying to rationalize Piracy, I think they were tring to Understand or explain WHY people commit the crime. There is also an interesting sidebar to all this. Please correct me if I'm wrong for it was a while ago this happened. A long time ago in a galaxy not so far away.... Visicalc was the first (Most popular anyways) spread sheet program. Then along came Lotus 1-2-3 (an exact duplicate albeit more powerfull) (no wonder, Murph, You could push "/" and get the same results) Well, Visicorp didn't like this one bit (does this sound a little like Piracy?) So they sued! KEEP in mind this all happened b4 the "look and feel" judgement. and software copywrite laws WERE in there infancy. To avoid the insuing lawsuit and settlement, Lotus did the HONORABLE thing they BOUGHT Visicorp! (neat trick eh?) BUT then there was SUPERcalc! hmmm well Lotus being Lotus.. they sued Supercalc. (of all the cheek!) I never did here the outcome of that one, BUT it sure gives food for thought on the whole Piracy issue doesn't it! DISCLAMER: it really did happen a while ago and my facts on company names and sequence of events maybe a little wrong, but this all DID happen. If anyone can correct (and I'm sure they will :-} ) or support me. Feel free! Murray Stevens@Seneca * hey KID! you wanna buy some C.P.M? * ... cheap ...