sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) (05/25/90)
In article <136118@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: > In article <11747@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: > >My Sun came with an editor (vi) and I still went out and > >got a 'better' editor. > > What do you mean 'got' did you buy a better editor from someone or > did you "get" gnu emacs or something similar for "free". Well, we ARE talking about VI. Isn't anything better? 1/2 ;-) > > >Even though memacs and ed come with the Amiga, there still > >are many shareware editors (Az, Jed, Uedit, Dme, m3g, stevie, > >textra, ...just to name a few) > > I don't doubt the number of shareware editors will continue to > exist. I want a "commercial quality" editor. That means it has > and easy to use manual, gets updated when bugs are found, meets > all of my requirements (like different font support, separate > screen or wb screen, etc). > > >There are few commercial editors, true. CED, (LSE and Z), > >and TxEd plus come to mind. > > I would disqualify LSE and Z mostly because they are bundled > with the respective C compilers. I had overlooked CED (sorry > about that Perry). Personally, I would disqualify any VI or e-macs look alike. :-) I would like something like Brief or Edix, which run on the clones. Can CED be configured to look reasonably like Brief? (Since I'm used to it now....) Speaking of Brief, it seems to be extremely popular. There don't seem to be that many text editors for the clones, or at least not that I've seen in the few development areas around here. (Not that the rest of the country couldn't be doing something different.) Maybe even the same could be said of word processors: people tend to choose from among just a few. If the clones have, say 3 or 4 fairly popular text editors, and the Amiga 2, this doesn't seem unreasonable, given the larger user base of clones. > > Shareware is a very close concept to "dumping" which the > Japanese got in to so much trouble for. A lot of people who If I have a neat program idea, should I not do PD/Shareware? Is this in order to help the software industry? Can you name a company that'd like a collection of various hacks and utilities from random programmers? :-) (Seriously, it'd be nice to know the alternatives to going shareware.) > do shareware don't do it for the money. Instead, they just ... > Unfortunately, they can't compete with an allegedly inferior > product that is being "sold" for less than cost. The smart > business decision is just to not even try to compete. ...or to make your product so much better and offer more support, so people will know which is the greater value. Some shareware authors don't/can't offer much support. At work on the clone, I would never go to an Emacs or VI clone from Edix or Brief. Perhaps this is personal opinion. :-) > > Anyway, it isn't a monochrome situation, rather sometimes > extenuating circumstances make a commercial product worth > while. Including an editor that is tailored to your compiler > is a good example. > > > -- > --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems > uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM > These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. > "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!" This is an interesting topic, since I do program, and a couple of times have toyed with the idea of doing something for shareware. I'm interested in hearing what people have to say on this. I'm also interested in hearing Marco's views on copyrights, since with whatever you do, this is a potential problem. I have one question on this. If one were to make an RPG character generator, would that still be covered under the RPG's copyright? Would it be sufficient to make a "generic" generator, where the user could type in the tables manually (in other words, not distribute the tables). I'm not sure if the rest of it would be "ideas" or what. (I know, there are D&D character generators on the shelves, it's just an example from an idea I had a long time ago, and never tried... but, I don't recall a good answer to this question. I guess I could have written the companies in question and asked what they thought, if I was that serious about it.) -- Gary Wolfe ..uflorida!unf7!tlvx!sysop, ..unf7!tlvx!sysop@bikini.cis.ufl.edu
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (05/25/90)
>cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >>Shareware is a very close concept to "dumping" which the >>Japanese got in to so much trouble for..... In article <1401@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: >C'mon, this isn't an opinion, this is paranoia! >Shareware isn't evil, the prices of most commerical products are, why >else would Sharware exist, or piracy for that matter? >What's truely criminal is the profit margins of some of the applications >available today. If anything sounds like "paranoia", it is your reply, Jack! Oh, no... the hateful evil commercial software companies are out to drain my wallet. And everybody knows that ALL commercial software companies are criminals. IMHO, Chuck McManis has a very good idea about what it takes, both academically and financially, to put out a commercial software product. His postings in past years (I REALLY wish he'd repost them... I think it's time!) about how much it costs to develop and market a simple software package were VERY eye-opening to me. And plenty of people followed up his postings, also saying how eye-opening they were. His best posting was in response to someone who said "why the hell do games cost $40-50?? I think they're worth only $10." Chuck explained, in a very rational and organized manner, exactly where these costs can come from. How about a repost?? Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org (John Meissen) (05/25/90)
In article <1401@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: >What's truely criminal is the profit margins of some of the applications >available today. > >In most every industry we have a drop in price as the manufacturer recovers >the initial costs for startup and development. But not software, each new >version brings with it a higher price tag. C'mon, now. When was the last time a car company dropped prices? Or when was the last time you paid $.25 for a paperback book? The only industry that this has been true for is the computer industry. And just because you can't see beyond today's prices doesn't mean it isn't also true for software. Six years ago a quality C compiler cost over $500. Ditto for almost anything worth buying. Computer hardware manufacturers also don't provide free support (beyond an initial warranty period) or free (or even periodic) updates. And they can amortize the costs over many years. > >And there's no sane explanation for this maddness other than greed, >reprehensible, utterly shameless greed. ...other than labor costs, manufacturing and distribution expenses, marketing and promotion expenses, support costs, facilities expenses, retail mark-up,....... Perhaps you work out of your car, and don't consider your time worth anything. >Me, I'll support a Shareware product or directly marketed product over one >that has been defiled by a commerical publisher any day. They are the >true scum of our industry. > That "scum" paid my salary for many years. I think if you were in the position of having to make a living by producing and selling software you would change your tune very quickly indeed. > -jack- -- John Meissen ............................... Oregon Advanced Computing Institute jmeissen@oacis.org (Internet) | "That's the remarkable thing about life; ..!sequent!oacis!jmeissen (UUCP) | things are never so bad that they can't jmeissen (BIX) | get worse." - Calvin & Hobbes
lofaso@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Bernie Lofaso) (05/26/90)
This topic has been of particular interest to me. Partly because I can relate to both sides of the issue, partly because some of the projects that I'm currently working on as PD software may eventually impact some commercial software. On one hand I tend to lean towards the every developer for himself attitude. Part of developing a successful product is to correctly assess the marketability of a product before beginning its development. I, as a weekend hacker, have much less time to devote towards software development, so it is reasonable to think that within a given time span a similarly talented developer should be able to develop a much better product than I and hence assure its continued marketability because of that superiority. If I can program a few hours a night (and believe me I program much less) and produce a similar product with even half the functionality of a commercial developer's product, then something is greatly amiss. Either the product is a bit trivial or the developer is not a very good one. The latter would lead me to speculate that he gets what he deserves; his product goes belly-up and he moves on to potentially greener pastures (perhaps as an insurance salesman or some such). Some might fault me for introducing my PD release and damaging the developer's sales, but had I introduced it as a commercial product at a ridiculusly low price, we would say "hey that's competition ... the American way." (Run up a flag here.) It can certainly be argued that introduction of an inferior product might unfairly grab market share from a fine product, but hasn't that always been the case? Come on, we'll all seen crap-ware on the market and in the past some have gotten away with some fairly steep prices, hence the argument about greedy developers. On the other hand I do not wish to deprive a deserving developer of his just rewards. I agree about considering things like GNU ports in light of exactly what that would do to the Amiga development environment. Note this is not the same as my above example - the lone programmer writing WidgetX is totally different from taking an existing application with uncountable man-hours of work and porting it. While I wish to take such things into account, I am at a loss for how to approach such concerns. If I have WidgetX and a commercial product comes out before I release, what do I do if I know mine isn't as good (or even if it is) and I suspect it may effect the commercial product's sales. Do I contact the developer and "warn" him. I probably won't be interested in a join venture. Programming on the weekends is much less taxing that having to get something done to support paying customers. I am open to ideas on this situation. One last viewpoint is that of what is best for the Amiga. Would having WidgetX as PD inspire more people to buy the Amiga? Would people who were unwilling to dish out bucks for a better product view the machine as more desirable because of all the good free software? Until Commodore approaches IBM and Apple in terms of Amiga sales, this will always be a concern of mine. Bernie Lofaso
bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) (05/26/90)
In article <1401@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: >Shareware isn't evil, the prices of most commerical products are, why >else would Sharware exist, or piracy for that matter? > >What's truely criminal is the profit margins of some of the applications >available today. > >In most every industry we have a drop in price as the manufacturer recovers >the initial costs for startup and development. But not software, each new >version brings with it a higher price tag. > >And there's no sane explanation for this maddness other than greed, >reprehensible, utterly shameless greed. > >Me, I'll support a Shareware product or directly marketed product over one >that has been defiled by a commerical publisher any day. They are the >true scum of our industry. > The only excuse for the above post is utterly shamless ignorence. You obviously don't even have a clue to the amount of work required to bring a commercial product to market. And after the dealer takes his cut, and the software distibutor takes his cut, and the software publisher takes his cut, and after packaging costs and marketing costs and product support costs why there's usually enough left over to buy a stick of gum. But then you're abviously an authority. ____________________________________________________________________________ Bob Luneski bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM The opinions expressed herein are my own and in no way reflect the opinions of Tektronix, Inc.
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (05/26/90)
In article <5366@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes:
IMHO, Chuck McManis has a very good idea about what it takes,
both academically and financially, to put out a commercial software
product.
Yup, he does. I suspect Chuck also has a good idea of how much
providing support for a complex commercial product costs. That doesn't
mean he's correct about shareware/freeware raping the commercial
market. There are just to many commercial products that compete with
shareware for that to be true.
I suspect he picked a particularly bad example with emacs. There are
commercial emac's for the IBM PC (or were last time I checked), even
though most of the microemacs in the Amiga world started life on the
IBM PC. Methinks the Amiga market is a particularly bad place to try
and sell a commercial emacs - the non-hacker portion of the market is
to small to support such a product, and you have to battle the
excellent non-emacs like editors, both commercial and otherwise, for
that market.
<mike
--
The handbrake penetrates your thigh. Mike Meyer
A tear of petrol is in your eye. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
Quick, let's make love before we die. decwrl!mwm
On warm leatherette.jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (05/26/90)
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: > If anything sounds like "paranoia", it is your reply, Jack! Oh, >no... the hateful evil commercial software companies are out to drain my >wallet. And everybody knows that ALL commercial software companies are >criminals. No, I'm quite rational for the most part, as is most anybody. But, I do find it insulting that something like Lotus sells as well as it does and still manages to increase in price with every release. Granted, unlike a mechanical device which wears out over a period of time, software remains as functional as the first day you licensed it. But, and maybe this is my major gripe, is when I look at something as technically advanced as a VCR, which has increased in performance, features and quality, while steadily dropping in price, you have something like Lotus, which has also increased in features (performance and quality being subjective here), but it has _increased_ in price. It's as if prior technology (Visicalc) has nothing to do with keeping the price at least level, if not downward. > IMHO, Chuck McManis has a very good idea about what it takes, >both academically and financially, to put out a commercial software >product. His postings in past years (I REALLY wish he'd repost them... >I think it's time!) about how much it costs to develop and market a >simple software package were VERY eye-opening to me. And plenty of >people followed up his postings, also saying how eye-opening they were. > His best posting was in response to someone who said "why the >hell do games cost $40-50?? I think they're worth only $10." Chuck >explained, in a very rational and organized manner, exactly where these >costs can come from. How about a repost?? I'd like to see it too, I'm always open to rational thought. But, at the visceral level, I *do* feel that most software is extremely overpriced. The piracy issue tends to justify that stance too, if the sofware was "reasonable" there would be much less piracy and more profit for the publisher as well. It's not that I'm anit-capitalist, I do feel everyone is allowed to make a profit, but it has its limits just the same. -jack-
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (05/26/90)
[I actually only found it again recently when I had to recover some files from a backup tape. Anyway, here it is once again... Chuck] > Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga > Subject: Re: Dongle blues (software prices) > Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) > Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View In article <4744@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, palarson@ (Paul Larson) wrote: > In my opinion, your suggestion of software packages for less than fifty > dollars each is ludicrous... Then in article <2408@crash.cts.com> (Todd South) wrote: > Paul, it's your kind of thinking that really blows me away in terms of the > actual authors making money on software. Actually, Todd is displaying a lack of understanding here hopefully we can educate him before he goes broke. I make the following assertion : "It is impossible to sell a product that requires support for less than $99 list and make any money." I offer the following anecdotal proof : You see, a lot of people think "Gee, here I have this wonderful program I just wrote. I spent 6 months writing this I'll sell thousands of copies and become a zillionaire!" But first, you think, "How will I make copies of this thing, it's obvious the ol' A1000 isn't up to making a zillion copies." So off you go looking for a 'Software Duplication' house. You find one, run by a nice old guy who has a couple state of the art Trace disk duplicators, they can duplicate 1000 3.5" disks in two hours. "Great," you say, "how much?" To which this guy replies, "Say $1.50 a disk, if I use the Tan ones, $2.00 if I use those Blue Japanese ones." Knowing how the net hates Tan floppies, you go for the Blue ones. Then you realize "But what about labels?" So he says "Well if you supply the labels I can have my kid put 'em on for 50 cents a disk." Looking at Junior there you decide that maybe you would be better off sticking them on yourself and respectfully decline. Next, you go off to Pip Printing and try to get some labels made. Your girlfriend did the design and used all 32 colors in Deluxe Paint. Pip tells you it will cost $2.50 for each label. You sheepishly ask what a black and white version would go for, they say 20 cents, and you go for it. You can always explain to her later right? Then you ask about manuals. You wanted to put this 50 page masterpiece in those little three ring binders IBM software seems to use, but find out that the binders themselves are $2.80 each so you go for a 'stapled through the back' manual on 9.5 X 12 stock (two 9.5 X 6 pages each.) Splurging, you get a four color cover on heavy stock and the rest of the pages are essentially photocopied. These only cost you $1.25 each. At the same time you have them whip out some 4 X 5 cards that have your address on one side and a mini questionaire on the back, you will use these as warranty registration cards, no problem they are only 10 cents apiece. Did we leave anything out? Packaging! Oh yeah, we have to put this thing on dealers shelves dont we? Hmmm, lets see what a box would cost, $2.00 hmmm, maybe we can use folder thingies, yeah thats the ticket, they are only $1.00 apiece with some printing they are only $1.50. Great, now you have everything you need and its only going to cost $5.05 ($1.50 + $.10 + $1.25 + $.20 + $2.00) each, so to be conservative lets sell them for ten times that or $50 each. Using our marketing savvy we decide to have them list for $49.95 making it sound cheaper. So now you have your production costs figured, you want to make up a few disks, unfortunately you can only get these prices if you order a minimum of 500 copies from Pip, and the old guy doing the disk duplication has a 1000 disk minimum. Ok you say, I'll get 1000 disks and 500 sets of the other stuff. Hmmm, that's $3500 up front. The Visa card has a $2000 limit so we will get the stuff from Pip and then get the disks duplicated when the orders start coming in. After all we only need 20 orders to cover the cost of duplication and I can run the disks for those off on the A1000. So you figure, you'll be making about $44 for each package you sell. Gee if you sell all 1000 you will make $44,000 and that's more than you ever made as a programmer right? Great, unlimited wealth here I come! And even if you don't get rich, after selling the first 80 copies you will have covered the production costs and be making pure profit right? Unfortunately, 1000 people don't buy your program. At least not right away. So you think, "Hmmm, I think I need to advertise a bit to let people know this wonderful program is available. I'll call Amiga World and Amazing computing to see what that would cost." $5000! Heck now I have sell another 100 to make back that $5000. Now you are up to having to sell 180 copies before you start making money, however the magazine will give me credit so I don't have to pay that right away. Besides, these magazines assure me that "thousands of Amiga enthusiasts" read their magazine so I'll probably sell hundreds more copies. So you place your ad and then have to wait three months for the magazine to hit the newstands. It is small, a simple column along the edge of a page, but it's placed well. In the mean time you figure that maybe a trade show would help so you decide to go to The Amiga Show, hosted by a users group in a town only a couple of hundred miles from where you live. No problem, you make about thirty copies of the program on your trusty A1000, package it up and get on a plane for this place. Sure the plane ticket costs $100, and the Motel-6 is more like a Motel-30 but two nights isn't going to break you right? And you can eat cheap, McDonalds is only $5 for dinner. And Pip gave you a really good deal on 1000 brochures, only $50. So you figure you will probably spend $250 for the expenses, and the booth is another $100 so $350 tops. Heck you can make that back by selling 8 copies of the program. Now the old Visa is practically splitting but you know this is a great program so you persevere. At the show you become immediately aware of two things, first everyone is running a 'show' special which is 10 - 40% of list price. Realizing that you don't want to appear to be stiffing everybody for full list you take $10 off the price and offer a show special of $39.95, now you need to sell 11 copies to make back your investment. The second thing you notice is that everyone who passes by the booth is taking a brochure and no one is stopping to talk or more importantly buy. You encourage conversation, with passers by, they shrug indifferently and move on. It occurs to you that maybe this is really a convention of brochure collectors in disguise. You get a couple people to acknowledge you're existence, one even makes a comment on the program "Nice program," he says, "but too expensive for me. Got anything for less the $20?" He takes a brochure anyway. A disheveled gentlemen comes up and asks about your program, you explain what it does and halfway through he says "I'll take one." Great! But he wants to pay by check. You notice he has another 7 or 8 packages under his arm on in bags so you decide to go for it and sell him the package. Of course you take as many forms of ID as he will give you and note them on the check. Then you realize you are ravenous! It's 1:30 already and you haven't had breakfast or lunch. The crowd is picking up so you don't want to leave the booth. You compromise and go to the food vendor at the back of the exhibit hall. You pay $12 for roast beef sandwich and a 10oz Coke. There goes the food budget for today. You get back to the booth and notice that all of the brochures are gone, so you open up the second 500 and put them on the table. Another man steps up and asks you about your program. You tell him what it does and before you can finish he begins to tell you about the program that he wrote that does everything yours does and more. After about 45 minutes of this you politely ask him why he isn't publishing it and he replies he will be starting next month. He also says that his will only be $24.95. You wish him luck and then try to ignore him. A couple of other people come up, talk for a while and then buy your program. A third comes up, wants to buy it but only if she can use her credit card. Since you don't have a merchants number with a bank you have to refuse. She leaves in a huff. Four other people show up all claiming to be editors for national Amiga publications, they all want 'review' copies of your program. Since you have 36 copies left you oblige them. Noting that this added $20.20 to your expenses. The day ends, you have sold 4 copies, given away 3 copies and distributed 1000 brochures. You find a Pip in the area and get another 1000 copies made of the brochure. Because it is a weekend and you want them before 9 am the next morning you have to pay $110. The next day is similar with the execption that this time you brought some bagels and soda from 7-11. The day looks good when you sell five copies of your program in the morning and give away 500 brochures. In the afternoon a young man that looks like a college student stops by your booth and begins talking about your program. He really seems to understand it and appreciates the finer points of your implementation. He even makes some suggestions that you see will definitely improve the program with only a little programming time. After two hours of this he says "Thank you for the Demo" and leaves. The show finally closes and you get ready to leave, before you go, the president of the Users Group hosting the show asks you for a review copy. Being generous you give him one, make the number of review copies go to 5. Then it is back to the motel to add up the results. Sales - 10 copies = $340 cash Expenses - $160 brochures, $100 plane ticket, $60 Motel, $100 for the booth $25 for food, $25.25 in review copies, all totalled $470.25 You only lost $130 on the trip. Gee, now you need to sell another 3 copies to cover that cost. Now you need to sell 183 copies before you make any money. Well some more time passes and your down to your last box of Kraft Cheese and Macaroni, but wait the Mailman shows up and he's looking real tired. You look at what he is carrying and wow! its thousands of 'reader interest' cards from Amiga World! It looks like a million but is probably closer to three or four thousand. Gosh, this is great. But I don't have that many brochures! Run down to Pip and have them print up three thousand brochures, fortunately you only use two colors so they only cost a nickel apiece, but you haven't made any money yet so you borrow the $150 from your Mom, and then you borrow another $660 for three thousand stamps. So you make it an even $1000 so you can package up an additional 700 brochures. Now you need to sell another 50 copies to cover that cost. That brings you up to 233 copies needed to sell. But, your not worried, some of these reply cards must be from some very enthusiastic owners because they circled twenty or thirty numbers on the card! So you spend a week solid of stuffing envelopes and licking stamps yuck! And then drop this boatload of brochures into the mail box. Only a matter of waiting for the money to start flowing right? Another month passes, and the reader interest cards have trickled down to a mere 10 or 15 a week. Now the mail man starts bringing in the orders, 1 here, another there, this one goes to Europe, this one to Ohio. You get about 50 people ordering your program. Since the damn is apparently ready to bust you call up the old guy with the disk duplicator and ask him to run you off 1000 copies of your program. He says "Fine, they be ready next month.". "What!" you say, "I thought you could do 1000 disks in four hours!" "I can," he says, "but you are twelve people down on the list of jobs I got here." Sigh, so you leave the order with him and when after three weeks some of your new customers call about the program you explain that it is still at the disk duplicators. So the month passes and you call back the old guy and he says "Yeah, it looks like it will be another month." "What!" you say, "Another month! How can that be?" "Well," he says "You're sill ten people down on the list and some of the jobs in front of yours are pretty big." So you ask "You mean to tell me that you have only done two jobs in an entire month?" "No," he says, "I've done fifty jobs, but the other 48 were 'high priority'." "And my job is not 'high priority?'" you ask. "Nope, but if you want to make it a priority job you can, it justs costs a bit extra." he says. "How much?" you ask. "Oh, not much, just 50 cents a disk" he says. Well your desperate so you say "Ok, make my job 'high priority'." "Oh, that's not 'high priority'," he says, "just priority, 'high priority' costs an extra dollar a disk." So you ask, "When will my 'priority' job be ready?" And he says "Next week." "Fine" you say, and hang up, realizing you have just added another 11 disks to the number you have to sell before you start to make any money. Bringing that total up to 244. Well, you get your disks in a week, and con your sister and mother into helping you stick labels on them and put them into the boxes with the warranty card and manual. Then you realize that UPS won't deliver these things for free, more like $1.50. So that gets taken off your profit as well. If all your disks are ordered by mail (and they have to be since dealers are not involved yet.) Thats another $1500 fixed cost for 1000 disks, or in sales another 34 copies. So now we are looking at selling 278 copies before we start to make any money. Not to worry though, you sent brochures to the 3700 people who sent you "reader interest" cards, of which 50 have already bought programs! Surely, another 223 will come through? But in reality, since no one has really heard much about your program, only another 200 send in orders. So all you need are another 23 sales and poof you broke even. Then it happens ... It's two-o-clock in the morning and the phone rings. Seems one of your customers has been using your program and just bought a hard disk. Well the hard disk won't configure properly. Do you know what drivers I need? After explaining what you know and getting them to call the hardware vendor who sold them the drive you lay down to go to sleep. **RING** the phone rings again. Another customer, this time on an Amiga with a memory board that was built from plans on a bbs, and installed by a friend. The machine keeps crashing. "Did it crash before you used the program?" you ask. "Yes," the disgruntled customer reports, "but not nearly so much as it does now." You ask further questions and the customer catches on that you suspect their memory board. They get extremely irate explaining that the memory board was built by a friend they trust and that your stupid program is full of bugs. It's now 5:30 in the morning, you try to catch a couple of hours sleep before the alarm goes off. The mail brings in two more orders, and three letters from people who want their money back. It also has a letter from the Visa company telling you that since you kept your balance so high on your card but still payed regularly they were pleased to offer you more credit. By now you have begun to incorporate some of the improvements in the code and are trying to get some programming done. You sprang for an answering machine because the calls kept waking you up or disturbing meals and such. You start getting calls from a bunch of people on your program but can't find their warranty cards in your file. When you check their area codes you note they all live in the same city as that users group who hosted that show ages ago. When the next one calls you ask why you haven't received there warranty card yet. They claim to have forgotten to send it. When you ask where they bought the program they give the name of some dealer. You hang up and call the dealer. No, they never heard of you, but they have heard of the caller, seems he looks alot a never buys any software. He does know how to use it all though, you both come to the same conclusion. At this point all of the "reader interest" cards have quit coming, you are spendin 4 to 8 hours a week on the phone supporting the 260 customers you have, and have still not made any money. Thus you think, I could handle the support if I didn't have to box these suckers and mail them out. I know, I'll get some dealers to carry my product. So you contact a few dealers, and they seem interested, but they want to know what distributor carries your product. Since none do you decide to make a deal with one of the distributors. So you call one up. They seem friendly enough, you tell them you have sold over 250 copies and are looking to expand and that the list price is $49.95. The distributor says "Great, will take 20 at the standard discount." Being naive and not knowing what the standard discount is you ask. They tell you it's 60 points. Meaning they will buy the programs from you for 40% of the list price or $19.98 each. This lets them sell them to dealers at 40 points and then the dealers can still make a little money if they take 10 or 20% off the list price. Of course *you* only make $15 a copy this way but maybe you will make it up in volume? If you go 'into distribution' and run another $5000 advertisement you will need to sell 334 copies to break even. Do you take the gamble? Do you still own your car? So you simultaneously run an Ad and sell some copies to the distributors. The dealers get this list of programs from the distributors, look at the new titles, compare them to see how much shelf space they have, and maybe order a few copies. The distributors 'buy' 100 copies from you but want terms like 'net 90' meaning that they have three months before they are required to pay you. So you agree, try to figure out how you will pay for the AmigaWorld ad and continue to wait. Your next AmigaWorld ad hits and maybe one of those editors who reviewed your package actually got something into print. You sell 50 copies yourself, and the distributor pays up and orders another 100 copies. Your installed base doubles and so does the phone traffic. Now you receive at least one call a day and sometimes three or four. You spend all your time on the phone and no time developing. Sales reach a peak of 120 in one month and then start to slide, so you take out more Ads, now somewhat larger maybe a half page, and the cost goes up to $10,000. Sales steady at 50 a month. Ok, so now you are a going concern, you start making payments again on your Visa and recouping your costs. At the same time several minor bugs and a few 'gotchas' have cropped up in your program. Your users start crying 'Upgrade, Upgrade.' but you have no time to write any code. What do you do? Well you could hire your sister to do support, but that would cut into earnings such that you might not be able to make payments on the Visa card. The situation is that you are indeed selling programs, and making a little money at it, but if you take the money you are making and divide that by the time you are spending on support, running the company, developing the code, and watching the finances you will find that you are making less than minimum wage. If you are relying on this program to make house payments, buy food, and pay utility bills then you find yourself unable to continue. You go out and get a job working for someone else. You could do it if the list price of the program was 99.95 and you had started out making $94 each on the program. It isn't a whole lot better but it is doable. And so it goes, -- --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/26/90)
In article <1401@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: >Shareware isn't evil, the prices of most commerical products are, why >else would Sharware exist, or piracy for that matter? >What's truely criminal is the profit margins of some of the applications >available today. >In most every industry we have a drop in price as the manufacturer recovers >the initial costs for startup and development. But not software, each new >version brings with it a higher price tag. >And there's no sane explanation for this maddness other than greed, >reprehensible, utterly shameless greed. Gee, from your previous postings, I thought you actually had a brain :-) You really blew it with this one. I guess there are four possible cases: 1. You wrote the message while you were stoned :-) (let's give it a 50%) 2. You are very naive (let's give it a 90%) 3. You are thinking to move to the Soviet Union or even better the People's Republic of China (another 50% probability) 4. You've just been released by the hospital as a manic depressive, after being found shouting " Lotus is Evil, Lotus is Evil" :-) I won't repeat what has been already argumented against your insane rumblings, except that you should read Chucks' reposting in a moment in which you're sober :-) Read and learn. >Me, I'll support a Shareware product or directly marketed product over one >that has been defiled by a commerical publisher any day. Oh, how nice. You're doing a public service, right? :-) Or are you looking for santification? > They are the true scum of our industry. Gee, if trying to make a living off a product, continue supporting it with timely updates and upgrades, provide a technical support line, and provide low-priced upgrades is being scum, then I'm scum as all other commercial developers. Jack, you're disturbed. You need some help :-) -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (05/26/90)
In <136264@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) wrote a hilarious and frighteningly realistic story about the travails of trying to sell your software. Thanks, Chuck. Very funny stuff, tho' kind of depressing... -- -- uunet!sugar!karl -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (05/26/90)
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >Shareware is a very close concept to "dumping" which the >Japanese got in to so much trouble for. A lot of people who >do shareware don't do it for the money. Instead, they just >like to program and do, periodically bundling up the results >into a "shareware" package on the presumption that any >financial returns are just bonuses to the already enjoyable >experience of creating something and having other people use >it. But it's not dumping in the same sense, because the motives are totally different. The Japanese "dump" to build market share and annihilate their foreign competition. Shareware (and freeware) authors "dump" because they feel they have written a moderately useful program, or a program that may be of great use to a limited number of people, and they want to share it with them but feel that the economics don't justify trying to actually sell the thing. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/27/90)
In article <5755@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >In <136264@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) wrote >a hilarious and frighteningly realistic story about the travails of trying to >sell your software. > >Thanks, Chuck. Very funny stuff, tho' kind of depressing... Well, I wouldn't call it funny. It's the plain truth for a lot of developers. In fact, it matches my personal story for about 99% of it. A-Talk III started in a university dorm; was shipped for 2 years off university dorms; didn't make any money for 3 years when all revenues were spent in "small" advertising; we got ripped off a 200-piece shipment to England (a now known distributor scam) and other horror stories. The 1% difference from the story is the end: we were asked to sell out the product to OXXI, which had the money for advertising full page color, and had a distribution network installed. Since then, although we make only a much smaller percentage of the sale price, we are actually profitable and can use the A-Talk III profits to fund other developments. Again, thanks to Chuck for writing the original article. I'd hope that Chuck would expand on it and submit it to a magazine: I think it would be kind of educational for a lot of people. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
dick@woodwrk.UUCP (Richard H. Wood, Garland, Texas) (05/27/90)
In an article, Chuch McMannis writes: >In article <MWM.90May21133744@raven.pa.dec.com> (Mike Meyer) writes: >[stuff deleted] >>Um - what constitutes a "commercial" grade version of emacs? In >>specific, why doesn't the MEMACS shipped with 1.3 qualify? Likewise, >>does GNU qualify? I'm pretty sure it's running on Amiga hardware >>already. > >Memacs would qualify, but ... GNU Emacs is _not_ >available on the Amiga for some reason, at least no one has been >willing to stand up and say "I've got it, here are the sources." >This is really curious considering its apparent value to the >computing community. > [other stuff deleted] > >-- >--Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems >uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM >These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. >"I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!" But, Chuck, there IS work going on with regards to an Amiga port of GNUEmacs. Scott Fritchie posted the following article in c.s.a.tech earlier this month: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fritchie@sachiko.acc.stolaf.edu (Scott Fritchie; ACC @ St. Olaf College) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: GNU stuff Message-ID: <FRITCHIE.90May5002136@sachiko.acc.stolaf.edu> Date: 5 May 90 05:21:36 GMT References: <1990May2.041747.4902@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <100@nic.acc.stolaf.edu> Sender: news@nic.acc.stolaf.edu Organization: /home/sachiko/fritchie/.organization Lines: 36 In-reply-to: hopp@stolaf..stolaf.edu's message of 4 May 90 15:20:22 GMT In article <100@nic.acc.stolaf.edu> hopp@stolaf..stolaf.edu (Eric D. Hopp) writes: Scott Fritchie and Mark Henning (fritchie@stolaf.edu & henning@stolaf.edu) are working on a port of GNU Emacs. I've been swamped, or I would have actually seen what they have running so far, and could tell you something about it. -eric hopp hopp@stolaf.edu Well, things are mostly done. I'm thinking this weekend we'll actually try to link the entire thing, which will take a *long* time. We've been thinking of moving everything down to our friendly Amiga store to compile on an A3000 (evil grin...). There's little hope that it will work after we find all the functions we forgot to include or not include, but theoretically it ought to. Yeah, right..... Anyway, this project started in late January. Both Mark and I are graudating seniors, so we've been busy making sure we graduate and bowl at least once per week. An optimistic release date, probably with bugs, will be in two weeks (Finals? Who needs to study for finals?). -Scott -- Scott Fritchie, Systems Programmer and Postmaster St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057 USA Domain: fritchie@acc.stolaf.edu UUCP: ..!umn-cs!stolaf!fritchie "Yeah, boss, I'll be in late today. UNIX refuses to boot on my Ford." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- d. ___________ _______ Dick Wood// / \ / \ |Become an | {texbell|texsun}!digi!woodwrk!dick| \\ // / \ / \| Organ |{egsner|texbell}!lerami!woodwrk!dick| Amiga\X/oodwork Bench | Donar| dwood@digi.lonestar.org|
jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (05/28/90)
jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org (John Meissen) writes: >C'mon, now. When was the last time a car company dropped prices? Or when >was the last time you paid $.25 for a paperback book? The only industry that >this has been true for is the computer industry. And just because you can't >see beyond today's prices doesn't mean it isn't also true for software. Six >years ago a quality C compiler cost over $500. Ditto for almost anything >worth buying. Actually, most all of the consumer electronics industry experiences each new generation of an existing product to be higher in quality, more features and at a lower price. It is only when a radically new technology product first appears that it is high in cost, as the product matures, it drops in price. The car industry has to contend with the costs of retooling each year for even the most trival changes in body style. Moreover, they have to constantly expend major capital for researh in reducing emissions and increasing mpg ratings in order to meet federal quotas that become stricter with each passing year. The car mechanic of today not only requires the ability to turn a wrench, he needs a substantial amount of training in combustion theory and electronics just to keep his/her job. >Computer hardware manufacturers also don't provide free support (beyond an >initial warranty period) or free (or even periodic) updates. And they >can amortize the costs over many years. Totally false. Most major applications today require you to pay for support beyond the initial purchase period. Ditto for each major upgrade. >...other than labor costs, manufacturing and distribution expenses, >marketing and promotion expenses, support costs, facilities expenses, >retail mark-up,....... What labor costs? Duplicating disks is labor intensive? Manufacturing? A box and manual is not the same thing as building a car. The bottom line is that there are so many hands grabbing a piece of the pie from the originating author to the end user is why software costs as much as it does. Can you honestly admit that most software has "value" that corrosponds to its cost? >That "scum" paid my salary for many years. I think if you were in the position >of having to make a living by producing and selling software you would change >your tune very quickly indeed. At least now we know why you feel as you do, no biggie. And yes, I would certainly like to make a living writing and selling software. JR-Comm may give me that chance, but not if that means having to overprice it. -jack-
jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (05/28/90)
bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) writes: >The only excuse for the above post is utterly shamless ignorence. Ignorance? Maybe. But, when did it become a crime? And, although I may be gulity of responding to a knee-jerk comment in a like manner, as can anyone, it certainly doesn't give you the right to bring it down to the personal level. Especially since you don't even know me. >You obviously don't even have a clue to the amount of work required to bring >a commercial product to market. And after the dealer takes his cut, and the >software distibutor takes his cut, and the software publisher takes his >cut, and after packaging costs and marketing costs and product support costs >why there's usually enough left over to buy a stick of gum. The "work" required to create a product is several orders of magnitude greater than that needed to package and distribute it. The problem is that the "cut" is far too large in proportion to their effort. >But then you're abviously an authority. Assumptions are a dangerous thing. -jack-
jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (05/28/90)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >Gee, from your previous postings, I thought you actually had a brain :-) >You really blew it with this one. I guess there are four possible cases: >1. You wrote the message while you were stoned :-) (let's give it a 50%) >2. You are very naive (let's give it a 90%) >3. You are thinking to move to the Soviet Union or even better the People's > Republic of China (another 50% probability) >4. You've just been released by the hospital as a manic depressive, after > being found shouting " Lotus is Evil, Lotus is Evil" :-) Hey, I admit, late night, long hours, little sleep, results, a knee-jerk response to a knee-jerk comment. No biggie. Life will go on. Stoned? No, grew out of it. Naive, partially. Communist, never. Lotus? Just a convienent example. >I won't repeat what has been already argumented against your insane rumblings, >except that you should read Chucks' reposting in a moment in which you're >sober :-) Read and learn. I will. Just don't ask me to grovel. <grin> >Oh, how nice. You're doing a public service, right? :-) Or are you looking >for santification? I'm agnositc, so that isn't it. And, although I do look for Shareware alternatives first, directly marketed products second, I will go the commerical route as a last resort if it is the only way to accomplish my goals. >Gee, if trying to make a living off a product, continue supporting it >with timely updates and upgrades, provide a technical support line, >and provide low-priced upgrades is being scum, then I'm scum as all other >commercial developers. Ok, I deserve it, I made a rash generalization. I've got no qualms with trying to make a buck, but when it becomes excessive, I get bent. >Jack, you're disturbed. You need some help :-) The truely distrubed are the ones who *know* they aren't. I've been a basket case since day one. And damn proud of it too. <grin> -jack-
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (05/28/90)
In article <1408@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes: >>Jack, you're disturbed. You need some help :-) > >The truely distrubed are the ones who *know* they aren't. I've been a basket >case since day one. And damn proud of it too. <grin> Jack, glad you read the "smileys" :-) I didn't know I was that close, though :^) -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/29/90)
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes:
[A long and humorous story about the trials and tribulations of trying to
earn a buck writing/selling software commercially]
Great story. But it kinda makes you think it's not really worth the
trouble to go commercial, eh? Might as well go SHAREWARE, eh? Startup
costs are less, and you probably will make more money (Maybe $10 total
instead of $10 in the hole). Less work too.
BTW: as an aside to Jack Radigan: How is your experience with JRCOMM?
It is shareware right? Have you made any profit on it yet? Is it worth it?
[Jack releases old versions of JRCOMM to the public and if you register, you
get the latest version and support.]
--
John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY)
sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK
A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nashmwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (05/30/90)
In article <1407@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
The "work" required to create a product is several orders of magnitude greater
than that needed to package and distribute it. The problem is that the "cut"
is far too large in proportion to their effort.
Assumptions are a dangerous thing.
Yup. So I'm not going to assume the first paragraph was spoken out of
ignorance, but that you've actually turned out a commercial product,
including beta testing, packaging, documentation, distribution and
support. The question is - what was the product? I can't imagine
anything where the effort to turn it from "good enough to let other
people use" to "good enough to charge people money for up front" is
more than marginally less than that needed to create it. For most,
you've done maybe 10% of the work when you start beta testing.
Chuck's description is far to accurate - except he forgot that as soon
as you start shipping, you'll start getting calls from people who had
bad disks, or never got the product, or otherwise require you to send
them another copy of the program. The cost for that comes (naturally
enough) out of your pocket.
From my investigations of the mail-order market (15 years ago now),
selling something that had no upgrade or support requirements
(basically, a game), doing everything out of your house, you needed a
markup of x6 over materials cost _just to break even_. I'm not at all
surprised that games retail for $25-$50.
That also means that non-trivial programs - like a compiler with
multiple disks and a multi-volume manual in 3-ring binders - you need
to charge $60-$100 for a complete ugprade just to break even, not
counting the extra support costs for the new version.
Anybody who goes through the problems of trying to turn a "program"
into a "product" deserves to earn lots of money - if the program is
well enough done and unique enough to earn it. Even if I don't think
it is, I'm not going to begrude them their houses in LA (or SF) and
their Mercedes. Remember, for everyone who makes it, there are 10 or
more who dropped out of the Amiga market and are still trying to pay
back their Visa bills.
<mike
--
[Our regularly scheduled .signature preempted.] Mike Meyer
The Amiga 1000: Let's build _the_ hackers machine. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
The Amiga 500: Let's build one as cheaply as possible! decwrl!mwm
The Amiga 2000: Let's build one inside an IBM PC!rod@venera.ISI.EDU (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) (05/30/90)
In article <11747@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: > >I too have wondered why the GNU software hasn't been ported. > >I don't think its the presence of the other bundled or shareware >products, though... Why? Because nobody has done it. I gather it's nontrivial to shift even from one Unix to another, and I've investigated the VMS-specific code, it's large and convoluted. AmigaDOS could be done, I'm sure, but nobody at the GNU Foundation has done it, and I haven't seen anybody here volunteering. One of the biggest problems, the reason you don't see the full GNU Emacs on smaller machines, is that it's a storage pig. Over 650 KB for the executable alone, a quarter of a megabyte in "dump" file it has to read, and 2-4MB of Lisp files for the interesting additions. Add a megabyte in help files and documentation. Plus the fact that it's considered to be preferable to include source, and you're looking at somewhere on the order of 15 MB in disk space. When I run GNU Emacs, the process rarely has less than 3/4 MB in physical memory, though I'm a heavily multi-buffer kind of guy. Don't know exactly how it will fare in a non-VM environment. The startup time is such that, on a machine as slow as most home machines, you'd probably prefer to just leave it running, too. It's only been recently that home computers could afford devoting that level of resources to any particular object, particularly if you want to be doing other things at the same time. If somebody here wants to volunteer to make GNU Emacs run under AmigaDOS, I'm sure we'd all be delighted to use it once you're done :-). --Rod
koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) (05/31/90)
> AmigaDOS could be done, I'm sure, but nobody at the GNU Foundation has > done it, and I haven't seen anybody here volunteering. One of the > biggest problems, the reason you don't see the full GNU Emacs on > smaller machines, is that it's a storage pig. Over 650 KB for the > executable alone, a quarter of a megabyte in "dump" file it has to > read, and 2-4MB of Lisp files for the interesting additions. Add a Its true that GNU emacs is quite large, but I think it would be somewhat smaller on AmigaDos. There are a few reasons I think this: for starters, the exact same code compiled under AmigaDos is usually smaller than it would be compiled under Un*x (A fairly complex program I once wrote called QRT is less than half the size under AmigaDos). Also, most Un*x versions of emacs include a whole boatload of X11 stuff, which makes things *huge*. The AmigaDos windowing stuff is quite efficient space wise. I bet the emacs executable would be, perhaps, 1/3 of the size under AmigaDos, which is more reasonable. Of course, as you point out, there are still all the lisp libraries and stuff, but you don't have to keep them all around (how often do you use ada.el :-). I have a sort of gut feeling that an Amiga could handle it (if not a stock 68K amiga then an '020 based one at least). Anyway, I, for one, would give my left arm to have GNU emacs on the Amiga. There's so much that can be done with it that is impossible on any of the pc/micro/wimpy emacses, and I have a whole bunch of customized emacs lisp libraries I'd love to have on the Amiga. - steve (koren@hpfela.HP.COM)
jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) (06/01/90)
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >[A long and humorous story about the trials and tribulations of trying to >earn a buck writing/selling software commercially] >Great story. But it kinda makes you think it's not really worth the >trouble to go commercial, eh? Might as well go SHAREWARE, eh? Startup >costs are less, and you probably will make more money (Maybe $10 total >instead of $10 in the hole). Less work too. Or, at the very least, do some marketability studies before forging ahead... >BTW: as an aside to Jack Radigan: How is your experience with JRCOMM? >It is shareware right? Have you made any profit on it yet? Is it worth it? I'm not getting rich (yet), but hope that will change as the program matures. >[Jack releases old versions of JRCOMM to the public and if you register, you >get the latest version and support.] I wanted it to work that way, unfortunately there are a few idiots who will post each beta/gamma as soon as it's available. That's changed, and has slowed things down as a result. Each version will be made available right after it is finished and will not be crippled except for a three hour session limit, you have to restart it after it terminates. Registration number installation will eliminate that. -jack-
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/01/90)
In article <9132@pogo.WV.TEK.COM> bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) writes: [We've seen the inclusion three time or more!] > >The only excuse for the above post is utterly shamless ignorence. > >You obviously don't even have a clue to the amount of work required to bring >a commercial product to market. And after the dealer takes his cut, and the >software distibutor takes his cut, and the software publisher takes his >cut, and after packaging costs and marketing costs and product support costs >why there's usually enough left over to buy a stick of gum. > Then I suppose you will be easily able to explain why perfectly playable games for the Amiga are for sale in the $25 and under range, while completely worthless games are going for $45 and up? I even bought one eminently playable game for $15 early in my Amiga's career. Fact of the matter is, except for profits, the cost of getting that $15 game to me was the same as the cost of getting that $45 game to me, OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Obviously you have your choice between deciding the more expensive game is a total rip-off, or that the management where it is produced has never heard of cost control. When I go to my local Amiga shop and see the hundreds of current titles on the game side of the shelves, I have a great deal of trouble believing that the Amiga game market is a profitless desert, and a deep and abiding suspicion that it is instead a vast well being tapped by every passerby, ethically or not. I've decided to start focusing my attention on the $30 and under market. If enough folks did the same, perhaps the word would get out. Similarly, rather than buy two-bit paperback novels at $4.95 and up (a TWENTY-FOLD increase in price since I started buying them in 1959), I patronize the library and the used book stores a lot. If the sales of $50 Amiga games drop to zero, and the sales of $25 Amiga games soar, it might be that the food chain from coder to your pocketbook would get the hint, who knows. The sad thing about the shareware market isn't that it drives the commercial vendors away; the sad thing is that it doesn't pay off for the shareware authors. It really disappointed me to see Matt Dillon saying he was releasing DICE (his C compilation system) shareware; the Amiga C compiler system market needs another commercial player, not so much to contain costs, as to push Manx and Lattice to start doing some quality control, instead of foisting off one buggy release after another on us. A single author product set would, I think, have a better chance than anything in sight of giving us a truly robust compiler system. It is always impressive to learn that the system was used in it's own development, as Matt's DICE was and is. But, with the little he will get from releasing DICE shareware, Matt will not be able to provide the kind of full time support a big product like that deserves, and the needed Darwinian selection in this market won't happen. Of course, you could all make him rich as Croesus, and surprise me to death, but I'm not holding my breath. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (06/03/90)
I have a lot to say about the topic of shareware and commercial
programs. There are a few programs in the PD that are almost as good
as their commercial counterpart. PCQ is a great example. The Pascal
options for the Amiga is not that great. The leader is MetaComCo's,
which costs approx. $100. While PCQ is obviously not finished, it
does have some advantages. Intuition support and a smaller price tag
to be specific.
Whereas this would remove a workable compiler from the PD, I
would like to see Patrick Quaid finish the program, and market it
in the $40 range. Finishing it would be to work out the current
bugs, and produce a proper manual. Income would encourage him
to work on it, and he deserves some reward for it.
There are other examples, like many, many games to numerous to
mention. Is DNet worth only what Matt is asking for it?
I love the Amiga public domain. I'd hate to lose the wealth of
software I have access to. But it is true. You can't compete with
free. I'd rather see these talented programmers compete with comercial
programs by undercutting their price with better quality, not by offering
a free, "almost as good" product.
----
F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet
"Gooooood coffee."rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) (06/03/90)
NOTE: I am including text from a posting seen recently in c.s.a. This posting is not directed at the author of the comments I've included here - it is directed at the genre of postings that read something like "Wouldn't it be nice if software cost $0-99 ...". > Whereas this would remove a workable compiler from the PD, I > would like to see Patrick Quaid finish the program, and market it > in the $40 range. Finishing it would be to work out the current $40 probably isn't a realistic price point for any product that comes with support, especially a language product. Even if the guy moves 2000 units a year through direct sales that is only $80K gross - not enough to manufacture the product, pay a salary, run the phone, advertise, etc. I'm not sure that the net profits from sales on a such product would be worth even investment of evenings/weekends hacker cycles. > I love the Amiga public domain. I'd hate to lose the wealth of > software I have access to. But it is true. You can't compete with > free. I'd rather see these talented programmers compete with comercial > programs by undercutting their price with better quality, not by offering > a free, "almost as good" product. PD has its place for any machine. There is probably no better way to learn how to (or how not to) program any machine than by looking at PD sources. PD helps manufacturers who market non traditional machines (eg the Amiga) get their first year of sales going before developers come on line. However, realize that there are people who derive all their income from sales in the Amiga market (I am _not_ one of those people) - prospective PD software authors should perhaps stop and think before they launch freeware that will affect a commercial package - if YOU were deriving all your income from a particular product, how would YOU feel about some person cutting the legs out of YOUR product. Here's a suggestion: rather than going for PD glory/hacker recognition, take your clone of a commercial product and actually try to compete with it on a fair footing with the other guy. One could approach the usual software houses with the product and get them to sell it, for example. You'll derive quite a few benefits from such a move: 1. You'll get an education in what it costs to do things commercially. The collective voice of sanity in Amiga product pricing will have won another convert ;-) If you follow the engineering rags these days it quickly becomes apparent that the industry will chew you up and spit you out around age 40 unless you've aquired some business acumen by then. Until I got into doing Amiga stuff commercially, I didn't realize how naive I was about most real life business matters. I don't mean ECO101 & simple interest formulas here. 2. You'll make more money than you would doing the same thing shareware. If you choose to hype your products through magazine interviews like some do in the Amiga market, then you'll get more glory too. 3. If your clone is technically competitive, then you'll help the user community by making your competitor do his thing better. (He will be encouraged to do better rather than run because he knows you are operating under the same forces of natural selection he is) 4. With your new found revenue stream you may then have the bucks + positive reinforcement to do the Amiga a favor by continuing to produce software for the machine. 6. Depending on where you land next, it may be a good resume stuffer. In summary: the "right" thing is to distribute significant works and all clone works commercially. Right for you, right for the user community, right for the machine itself. And hell, it is considerate of other people too. If you choose to ignore what was said in this posting then consider this: sooner or later the day will come when you graduate from college and the reality of paying off your loans, getting a mortgage, paying rent, insurance, raising a family, etc is waiting for you at the door :-) The unfortunate truth for all us computer dweebs is that banks negotiate transactions in terms of dollars, not lines of PD software. IMHO, all the usual disclaimers, etc. Rick Spanbauer Ameristar
mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) (06/04/90)
In a previous article, rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: > > $40 probably isn't a realistic price point for any product that comes > with support, especially a language product. This I agree with. I'm not sure, but I don't think that Borland even sells the original vanilla TurboPascal for the $49 pricetag. This pricepoint can be met, but it takes a HUGE investement of thought and time up front to make it work. > PD has its place for any machine. There is probably no better way > to learn how to (or how not to) program any machine than by looking > at PD sources. PD helps manufacturers who market non-traditional > machines (eg the Amiga) get their first year of sales going before > developers come on line. However, realize that there are people who > derive all their income from sales in the Amiga market (I am _not_ one > of those people) - prospective PD software authors should > perhaps stop and think before they launch freeware that will affect > a commercial package - if YOU were deriving all your income from a > particular product, how would YOU feel about some person cutting the > legs out of YOUR product. True. PD does have it's place. So does TryWare, ShareWare, FreeWare, lowball commercial, high priced commercial, etc. Later in this posting you talk about learning lessons and economics. Since when does a free market approach preach that one should take into account the number of children a competitor has? If the competition isn't good enough to survive with a PD alternative, then so be it, IMHO. Darwinian selection can be good, and Yes, I have lost my job due to working on a project that wasn't competetive. It happens. Do you think it's fair that Detroit suffers regular waves of severe economic hardship due to the antics of Ford/GM/Chrysler while trying to compete against the Japanese et al? Give the people an option, and let the Free market decide who lives and who dies. If consumers shouldn't feel obliged to buy from BrandX because the guy just had a baby and really needs the money, why should Joe HackerDude worry about cutting his legs off on the commercial market? > Here's a suggestion: rather than going for PD glory/hacker recognition, > take your clone of a commercial product and actually try to compete > with it on a fair footing with the other guy. One could approach > the usual software houses with the product and get them to sell it, > for example. You'll derive quite a few benefits from such a move: Fair? I don't know about anybody else out there, but nobody ever promised me life would be fair! Who decides what 'fair' is and what it's not? People who do PD have a different motivation than those who don't. Who's to say that isn't right? Maybe Joe Coder doesn't want to deal with the hastle of trying to get the world to reward him with money. The essay on C-Light that appeared here in c.s.a would be enough to encourage most to think twice before going on the independant software producer road. > 1. You'll get an education in what it costs to do things > commercially. The collective voice of sanity in Amiga > product pricing will have won another convert ;-) If you > follow the engineering rags these days it quickly becomes > apparent that the industry will chew you up and spit you > out around age 40 unless you've aquired some business > acumen by then. This assumes that a person actually cares about making money from his work. As previously stated, there are different motivations. You are correct, however, in stating that the real world will grind you exceedingly hard as you establish yourself. There are exceptions, but I don't know any personally. > 2. You'll make more money than you would doing the same thing > shareware. I am currently writing a program to be released to the PD amiga market. It has a direct commercial competitor. I don't expect to make money on my version, even though I'll ask for some and maybe cripple a few features to encourage compliance. I haven't really kept track, But I'd guess I have at least 80 hours to date into it, probably much more. If I'm lucky, I think I'll maybe make $100. Do I care about either the money I make or the sales they might loose? Nope. Different motivations entirely. Part of risks of going into business is being subjected to competition of all types. The rewards are that if you choose right, you get rich. They may decide to approach me and 'buy me out' or hire me as an outside contractor. Who can say? > 3. If your clone is technically competitive, then you'll help > the user community by making your competitor do his thing > better. (He will be encouraged to do better rather than > run because he knows you are operating under the same > forces of natural selection he is) He could also be wimpy and just decide to fold, or callus and just decide not to change, or jealous/crazy and decide to shoot me!! Who knows what the competition will do, given his resources and the factors involved? > 4. With your new found revenue stream you may then have the > bucks + positive reinforcement to do the Amiga a favor > by continuing to produce software for the machine. How many people get upset because they didn't make money off PD when they expected to and decide to leave the arena? Once again, money is nice but not the only motivation to write software for the amiga (or anything else). I do software for a living during the day, and I do amiga stuff at night just for kicks. > In summary: the "right" thing is to distribute significant works and > all clone works commercially. Right for you, right for the user > community, right for the machine itself. And hell, it is considerate > of other people too. To paraphraze the comic Lenny Bruce, "Who is to say what's right?". IMHO, I would say that the population should try any and all things, and let the free market decide. > If you choose to ignore what was said in this posting then consider > this: sooner or later the day will come when you graduate from > college and the reality of paying off your loans, getting a mortgage, > paying rent, insurance, raising a family, etc is waiting for you > at the door :-) The unfortunate truth for all us computer dweebs is > that banks negotiate transactions in terms of dollars, not lines of > PD software. I have graduated (about 7 years ago), paid off loans, got a mortgage, payed rent and insurance. I still feel that the PD/Shareware market should be allowed to do whatever the heck it wants. Banks do negotiate in terms of dollars but they are not the only yardstick of performance out there. Of course, I haven't raised a family yet, so my perspective may change when that occurs, but I kind of doubt it. :-) As you may have gathered, I'm a true believer in the free market. I support Jack Radigan (financially, too) and others who have elected to go the shareware route. I also support the idea of commercial software, both high and low priced. If the market gives it a thumbs down, then they have to live with it. If there is no cap on the up-side of software stardom, why should there be a limit on the down-side? > Rick Spanbauer -dave
rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) (06/04/90)
In article <12779@netcom.UUCP> mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: >> In a previous article, rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: >True. PD does have it's place. So does TryWare, ShareWare, FreeWare, lowball >commercial, high priced commercial, etc. Later in this posting you talk about When I use PD, it is in this sense: PD != Commercially sold, supported. >learning lessons and economics. Since when does a free market approach preach >that one should take into account the number of children a competitor has? >If the competition isn't good enough to survive with a PD alternative, then >so be it, IMHO. Darwinian selection can be good, and Yes, I have lost my job I am not suggesting that we setup a welfare state for would be Amiga software houses. I am however trying to inject input from the "other side" - too often it seems this forum acts as as judge, jury, and executioner of business without taking time to gather the facts. >due to working on a project that wasn't competetive. It happens. Do you >think it's fair that Detroit suffers regular waves of severe economic hardship >due to the antics of Ford/GM/Chrysler while trying to compete against the >Japanese et al? Give the people an option, and let the Free market decide who Cars are hard goods that have non zero duplication costs. To the extent of materials costs, etc the Japanese are on the same footing as Detroit. The same cannot be said of "PD" software versus commercial suppliers. Several commercial suppliers competing in a stronger market is good for all of us. One or more commercial guys competing against several PD dudes in a weak market isn't helping the any of the players or their user community. >lives and who dies. If consumers shouldn't feel obliged to buy from BrandX >because the guy just had a baby and really needs the money, why should Joe >HackerDude worry about cutting his legs off on the commercial market? Because Joe HackerDude may find himself at some point needing Carl CommercialDude. I buy from the guy up the street who makes Mexican Food every now and then just to help ensure he is there when I don't feel like rolling my own. Joe HackerDude can find other things to get his thrills rather than to reinvent the wheel that the commercial guy is selling. Especially so when the motivation is that the commercial guys charges too much. After all, unless Mr HackerDude is digging beach sand, mining bauxite, making electricity, etc and turning them into machines, he is relying the commercial sector already. My particular beef along these lines is the GCC hackers who are threatening to drag me into the compiler support business through their actions. My thing is to produce systems solutions for the Amiga, eg I used to do tcp/ip networking, and the last thing I want to do is spend my time fixing GCC if Manx or Lattice was forced from the market by freeware (I did a GCC port myself > a year ago but for personal thrills but sat on it out of respect for the commercial guys). Imagine the irony of using a commercial compiler product to build a GCC port.... >Fair? I don't know about anybody else out there, but nobody ever promised me >life would be fair! Who decides what 'fair' is and what it's not? People >who do PD have a different motivation than those who don't. Who's to say that >isn't right? Maybe Joe Coder doesn't want to deal with the hastle of trying >to get the world to reward him with money. And maybe we all should live by the least common denominator of the least of us. The point here is simply because some people might live in a dung huts doesn't mean all of us do :-) > -dave I would like to add that there are days when I pretty much buy the Stallman theory of free software. Maybe it is true that computing would benefit from having everything available for the asking. The question is what you software types will do for a living to support all those midnight PD production cycles? Work at McDonalds? Ain't my idea of living! >> Rick Spanbauer PS: usual disclaimers: my opinions are my own, etc.
mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) (06/04/90)
In a previous article, rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: > > When I use PD, it is in this sense: PD != Commercially sold, supported. Yes, this is one of the caveats of PD. Support is not part of the deal, usually. There are some rare exceptions. > > Cars are hard goods that have non zero duplication costs. To the > extent of materials costs, etc the Japanese are on the same footing > as Detroit. The same cannot be said of "PD" software versus commercial > suppliers. Several commercial suppliers competing in a stronger market > is good for all of us. One or more commercial guys competing against > several PD dudes in a weak market isn't helping the any of the players > or their user community. Yes, cars are not good examples. I'm not sure if there is a good equivelent to the PD software market vs. Commercial. Software is unique among goods in that it costs big bux to make the first copy, and 49 cents for the disk to make the second copy. Users have to know little else than how to use a 'copy' command to make a perfect version. Even a motivated mechanic couldn't duplicate a car without parts. About the only other semi-equivalent markets I can think of is music writing or book writing. A xerox machine is all that is needed to obtain something. There aren't too many PD composers out in the world, though. And they don't have the benefit of net.distribution or fish disks. > Because Joe HackerDude may find himself at some point needing > Carl CommercialDude. I buy from the guy up the street who makes > Mexican Food every now and then just to help ensure he is there when > I don't feel like rolling my own. Joe HackerDude can find other > things to get his thrills rather than to reinvent the wheel that the > commercial guy is selling. Especially so when the motivation is that > the commercial guys charges too much. Yes, there are benefits to the full service approach. I normally buy any commercial software I use via mailorder due to cost, but I was VERY thankful when I blew up a CIA chip in my amiga to be able to go to the local amiga dealer and buy one. Addressing your point about Mr. HackerDude getting his thrills, part of the motivation to doing PD is that the commercial equal just doesn't do all it should or has bugs in it. He may be re-inventing the wheel, but his goal might be to make it a little rounder or provide a better ride. If the Carl CommercialDude doesn't have the resources, time, or motivation to improve his product, then the market will decide between the original commercial version or the new and improved PD version. The market will almost always choose the less expensive product when all other features are identical. What is the price point for 'charging too much'? For every product and user, this value changes. > My particular beef along these lines is the GCC hackers who are > threatening to drag me into the compiler support business through their > actions. My thing is to produce systems solutions for the Amiga, eg > I used to do tcp/ip networking, and the last thing I want to do is spend > my time fixing GCC if Manx or Lattice was forced from the market by > freeware (I did a GCC port myself > a year ago but for personal thrills > but sat on it out of respect for the commercial guys). Imagine the > irony of using a commercial compiler product to build a GCC port.... I do not know of a company with a superior product that has folded due to PD competition. You may be forced into the compiler support business, but I doubt it. The GCC port may cause Manx and Lattice to solidify there latest compiler releases, though. This would be for the good. One thing the GCC port (and Matt Dillon's DICE software) would do is allow the bright young student to have access to tools that s/he may otherwise not be able to afford. I have never heard of anyone in the last 20 years hand assembling code so as to avoid using an earlier computer system. That's one of the benefits of the software industry. One can choose to use tools created previously to promote the state of the art. > I would like to add that there are days when I pretty much buy > the Stallman theory of free software. Maybe it is true that > computing would benefit from having everything available for the > asking. The question is what you software types will do for a > living to support all those midnight PD production cycles? Work > at McDonalds? Ain't my idea of living! I'll keep trying to live by my wits to provide the type of lifestyle I want to have. Stallman has some appealling ideas, but I prefer to get paid for the code I develop. Of course, the stuff I write is usually the type of software that's not too applicable to anyone without a 34 meter Radio-telescope or a high speed digital ground station to support it, so I guess it wouldn't really be applicable for the masses. :-) If software hackers choose to sell shoes or work at McDonald's to support his creative efforts at night, I applaud his effort. That doesn't mean I would choose that mode for myself. > Rick Spanbauer -dave
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (06/05/90)
Well, this is a very interesting topic and lots of people have some very strong opinions about the subject. I hope the guy who first asked the question has made up his mind what he wants to do. There hasn't been another message from him. Marco, I was intruiged by one of your comments. The one about how you buy software mostly from mail-order but were very glad there was a dealer nearby from whom you could obtain a CIA chip. Does this mean you don't support your dealer? Hmmmm..... :) I don't use ATalk, I use VT100 because it does what I want done and the price is right. All I want is a good solid terminal for talking to Portal. Zmodem uploads/downloads and ARexx support are now necessities but I wouldn't pay $$ for a product (say ATalk) to get them. If I were start using the packet-switched networks and had several serial ports and stuff then I would probably buy ATalk at once. My point is that this PD product serves my needs adequately without support so I don't need a commercial product. I was one of the original Online! users. Terrible. I still have it and haven't upgraded because it is not as easy to use as VT100. Anybody want it cheap? Full docs, box, manual. I'd have to say that shareware/PD doesn't drive out commercial products much at all. I don't know yet if I need to swap files with an IBM. But I have MessyDOS just in case. If it doesn't do what I want then I'll buy Cross-DOS no-sweat to get what I need. If Cross-DOS doesn't fill the bill I will put up with MessyDOS until one or the other does. As was pointed out before, price is not the only factor. I read the story of getting into the independant software business with great interest. It all made sense until I got to the part about stores asking "who's your distributor?". I know what in theory the distributor does but maybe somebody who's been through it all could comment on what the distributor really does to justify 20% of the price. And who knows why stores won't simply buy from the independant developer, (assuming he or she has some idea of business practices and is grounded in some sort of reality. Not all software dweebs could be counted on to deliver disks to order on time.), I used to see that at our local dealer but now he only sells the boxed stuff from houses like EA and Oxxi. Maybe burned too often? Dana - sorry I can't quote from previous messages. Maybe when rev 12 of Portal is up?
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (06/05/90)
In article <1990Jun3.163532.12083@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes:
In summary: the "right" thing is to distribute significant works and
all clone works commercially. Right for you, right for the user
community, right for the machine itself. And hell, it is
considerate of other people too.
Ok, I'll quit releasing stuff PD, and start releasing it
commerciallty. I'll even split the profits 60/40 with you. All you
have to do is cover all the expenses of going commercial, and the
difference between my 60% and my current salary. Oh - and my wife's
salary, as she'll be doing documentation for me instead of MIPS.
That'll save you money over just hiring someone to do the
documentation.
Or are you not interested? I don't blame you. I don't think it's worth
going through that expense & risk for 100%; why should you for 40%. On
the other hand, you also don't have any business dictating what's
"right" for me to do with the product of my labor.
Remember, much of the PD work floating around is _not_ the result of
someone deciding they wanted to make money. It's the result of someone
saying "I need an X", and discovering that the X's available were
either inadequate or overpriced. So they write an X that's adequate
for their needs. The choice now is to 1) go commercial, which means
there's something greater than four times as much work left to do, as
well as the problems of actually shipping it; 2) ship it out as
freeware in some form, which is what you're objecting to; 3) not ever
let anyone else see it - which is a perversion of hacker nature.
I'll confess I would have been happier if the concept of shareware had
never come into being - I think a lot of nifty software that would
otherwise be free and come with source gets turned into sourceless
shareware because the author hopes to make a fast buck. But that's got
nothing to do with said shareware hurting commercial ventures; in
fact, there's little overlap between the two types of shareware.
I would like to add that there are days when I pretty much buy
the Stallman theory of free software. Maybe it is true that
computing would benefit from having everything available for the
asking. The question is what you software types will do for a
living to support all those midnight PD production cycles? Work
at McDonalds? Ain't my idea of living!
I'd do the same thing I'm doing now - charge people $'s for hours of
time spent supporting software. I don't own the software I support
now, and can't make money selling it. Why should it being GNUWare make
a significant difference?
<mike
--
Lather was thirty years old today, Mike Meyer
They took away all of his toys. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
His mother sent newspaper clippings to him, decwrl!mwm
About his old friends who'd stopped being boys.papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/05/90)
In article <30508@cup.portal.com> FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) writes: >Marco, I was intruiged by one of your comments. The one about how you >buy software mostly from mail-order but were very glad there was a >dealer nearby from whom you could obtain a CIA chip. Does this mean >you don't support your dealer? Hmmmm..... :) Sorry, not one of my comments. On the rest, if PD is good enough for you, go for it. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (06/05/90)
I'd quote previous notes, but nobody wants to see 1000 lines of text.
Rick, I appreciate where you are coming from. I was looking at "almost
commercial grade" software and wishing they were completed. The auther
hasn't plans for speedy enhancements, as he isn't really being paid.
The $40 I quoted may be small, but I was referencing it to getting
nothing for the same product. I didn't conciter phone support and
advertisement.
Some of these products (PCQ, ZC, DNet, and many others) could be sold
commercially if the author had time to debug it better, and proper
docs were produced. Right now they are competing with better quality,
better supported products. Competing because that are free (or nearly so).
Actually, I don't think anyone has anything like DNet available commercially,
but that's besides the point.
A small publisher could concievably market various products for a good
price, and give the author a piece of the action. Vendors would not be
competing with a free product, programmers will be compensated for their
work, and a better product will be available.
----
F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet
"Gooooood coffee."lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (06/06/90)
In <1990Jun5.231451.422@ameristar>, rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: >In article <MWM.90Jun4115553@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >>In article <1990Jun3.163532.12083@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: > >>Remember, much of the PD work floating around is _not_ the result of >>someone deciding they wanted to make money. It's the result of someone >>saying "I need an X", and discovering that the X's available were >>either inadequate or overpriced. So they write an X that's adequate > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Ah, you said the "O" word. Defend "overpriced", please. Well, I didn't say it, but I'll defend it. The definition of it, first of all, is simple. Overpriced is when a product is perceived by the buyer to not give an adequate benefit in return for the money asked. Now this may sound a little general to you, but it's the reality of the situation, and the reality does not allow for a fixed point of 'overpricedness' for any given product, that being dependent upon each buyer's situation. If I were to need, say, an Ada compiler to do a job, for which I would be paid a sum of money, I would be willing to pay quite a bit, exactly how much being dependent on the amount I could expect to make on the job, plus whatever I felt I could make with the product after that job was through. On the other claw, if I did not have a contract that required a fully certified Ada compiler, and if I wanted to learn the language, I would certainly not be willing to pay the same amount. The difference, in this particular example, might be considerable, perhaps as much as $4000-$5000 difference. ie. I might pay 5 grand for it if I had a good contract, and only $100 or less if I just wanted to play with it to see what the language was like. If I wanted to play, and the commercial $100 Ada was not worth beans for some reason, I might then write one myself (Fat chance, but you get the idea). The result of that project could end up as PD, freeware, shareware, or commercial. Bear in mind that this presupposes that the two products mentioned were actually available. >>well as the problems of actually shipping it; 2) ship it out as >>freeware in some form, which is what you're objecting to; 3) not ever >>let anyone else see it - which is a perversion of hacker nature. > > If you read my earlier comments closely, you'll see that > I confined my comments to HackerDudes reinventing commercially > available products, mostly out of motivation that the commercial > software "costs too much". Well, maybe it does... to them. Maybe, just maybe, they (1) don't have a lot of money, (2) don't feel the product is good enough for the cost, (3) cannot justify it as a business expense, (4) don't need the full capabilities of the product, and (5) would enjoy writing it so much that the writing would be more than worth the time spent. If you look upon 'hobby' time as time that is best spent doing what you want to do, and writing something is what you want to do, you would be foolish to pay someone for the dubious benefit of depriving yourself of many hours of pleasurable endeavour. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) (06/06/90)
In article <MWM.90Jun4115553@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >In article <1990Jun3.163532.12083@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: > > In summary: the "right" thing is to distribute significant works and > all clone works commercially. Right for you, right for the user > community, right for the machine itself. And hell, it is > considerate of other people too. > >Ok, I'll quit releasing stuff PD, and start releasing it >commerciallty. I'll even split the profits 60/40 with you. All you >have to do is cover all the expenses of going commercial, and the >difference between my 60% and my current salary. Oh - and my wife's >salary, as she'll be doing documentation for me instead of MIPS. >That'll save you money over just hiring someone to do the >documentation. Sorry, I'll pass Mike. If you're serious, you might try contacting some house that specializes in Amiga software publishing, eg OXXI. If you go the publisher route the costs you will assume will be less - talk to people on the network who have done this. >Or are you not interested? I don't blame you. I don't think it's worth >going through that expense & risk for 100%; why should you for 40%. On >the other hand, you also don't have any business dictating what's >"right" for me to do with the product of my labor. I'm *suggesting* the right thing to do, not dictating. You're overreacting. Too much Dr Pepper this week? >Remember, much of the PD work floating around is _not_ the result of >someone deciding they wanted to make money. It's the result of someone >saying "I need an X", and discovering that the X's available were >either inadequate or overpriced. So they write an X that's adequate ^^^^^^^^^^ Ah, you said the "O" word. Defend "overpriced", please. >well as the problems of actually shipping it; 2) ship it out as >freeware in some form, which is what you're objecting to; 3) not ever >let anyone else see it - which is a perversion of hacker nature. If you read my earlier comments closely, you'll see that I confined my comments to HackerDudes reinventing commercially available products, mostly out of motivation that the commercial software "costs too much". > <mike Rick
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (06/07/90)
In article <1990Jun5.231451.422@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: >Remember, much of the PD work floating around is _not_ the result of >someone deciding they wanted to make money. It's the result of someone >saying "I need an X", and discovering that the X's available were >either inadequate or overpriced. So they write an X that's adequate ^^^^^^^^^^ Ah, you said the "O" word. Defend "overpriced", please. "Overpriced" means more than it's worth to me. That may be because I don't need 90% of the features, or because I'm a broke student who spent all his spare cash on the hardware, or because it's something I'd only use only use once in a blue moon. It's a personal call. If you read my earlier comments closely, you'll see that I confined my comments to HackerDudes reinventing commercially available products, mostly out of motivation that the commercial software "costs too much". Gee, all the things I mention mean that the commercial software "costs to much". Many of them look like valid reasons for wanting to create the tool yourself. It doesn't matter _why_ the software was written, you're still asking them to either invest much more effort in the software to make it commercial, or to not let anyone else use it. That's as offensive and unrealistic as asking that commercial software vendors cut their price to just a bit over the materials cost and start shipping with source. <mike -- When all our dreams lay deformed and dead Mike Meyer We'll be two radioactive dancers mwm@relay.pa.dec.com Spinning in different directions decwrl!mwm And my love for you will be reduced to powder
perry@madnix.UUCP (Perry Kivolowitz) (06/08/90)
Dave McMahan writes: >I do not know of a company with a superior product that has folded due to >PD competition. Meridian Software. EX-Makers of Zing, Zing Keys and Zing Spell. A good bunch of guys who where there in the beginning. And not there now. >Stallman has some appealling ideas, but I prefer to get paid for >the code I develop. Of course, the stuff I write is usually the type of >software that's not too applicable to anyone without a 34 meter Radio-telescope >or a high speed digital ground station to support it, so I guess it wouldn't >really be applicable for the masses. :-) In the above, lies the theory we hit on a long time ago which helps keep ASDG's doors open. That is: Escalate far beyond your competitor's ability to counter. Said another way: Peace, through overwhelming firepower. (Oh please let me be Secretary of Defense just for one year!) In general, the easier as application is to knock off, the more likely it will be knocked off. As you get to more sophisticated applications, the less likely it is that you will face PD (or any other) competition. Of course, the more sophisticated an application is, the more dollars and hours you throw at its development. And the higher the risk. This is the rule we've lived by for some time now and we're still in business. Competition from PD is not our problem. We put enough into our products to provide genuine worth for money paid. What *IS* our problem is when people acquire our products without paying. Call it whatever you want. It is plain ****ing out and out theft. And yes, it literally does take food from my nine month old son's mouth. I'd give almost anything to have people use all the PD software they could ever want if they didn't want to pay for commercial products as long as they stopped ripping commercial developers off. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put another way, David McMahan makes the valid point that PD software is a valuable alternative to commercial software. On the two sides of the equation you have commercial ware balanced by freeware. Then a very large, very selfish and very low group of users says ``For whatever reason, I won't buy commercial software, but hey - screw the equation, I'll rip it off anyway.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Piracy...and not PD software...is what's hurting developer's the most. If a commercial product is bested by a PD product, then as Dave McMahan says...Drawinian selection rules all. But Piracy...Piracy takes the best of the gene pool and hamstrings it or, in many cases kills it. -- Perry Kivolowitz, ASDG Inc. ``We look for things. Things that make us go.'' UUCP: {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!perry CIS: 76004,1765 PLINK: pk-asdg
stoller@cbmcel.UUCP (Martin S. Stoller) (06/08/90)
In article <MWM.90Jun6131125@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >In article <1990Jun5.231451.422@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: > >Remember, much of the PD work floating around is _not_ the result of > >someone deciding they wanted to make money. It's the result of someone > >saying "I need an X", and discovering that the X's available were (a lot of stuff deleted {MSS}) > If you read my earlier comments closely, you'll see that > I confined my comments to HackerDudes reinventing commercially ^^^^^^^^^^^ > available products, mostly out of motivation that the commercial > software "costs too much". > >Many of them look like valid reasons for wanting to create >the tool yourself. It doesn't matter _why_ the software was written, (more gone to the wind {MSS}) > <mike >When all our dreams lay deformed and dead Mike Meyer >We'll be two radioactive dancers mwm@relay.pa.dec.com >Spinning in different directions decwrl!mwm >And my love for you will be reduced to powder Ok. So much said. But what about those (there are many) programs which once were PD or at least ShareWare, and are now COMMERCIAL. I don't mean those which have been commercialized by the original programmers (CYGNUS ED comes to mind, I'm still using VI on an AMIX, but one day I'll buy that super maniacal programmer's ED. I've heard it can now use other fonts. NEAT-O!), I mean those which have been COMMERCIALIZED by people which had gotten the idea from a PD program (or thought of it themselves, it doesn't really matter), after the PD version had been scoring the world. What is their excuse??? So chew on that!!! (please don't flame me, I've been working all night...>;-} ) -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | Martin S. Stoller, Technical Support Assistant | | Commodore Electronics Limited (CEL), Switzerland | | 'We maveric maniacal programmers must be marvelous...' | | ...the deamomnd ring... | | See ya... Martin S. Stoller | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/09/90)
In article <1377@madnix.UUCP> perry@madnix.UUCP (Perry Kivolowitz) writes: |Piracy...and not PD software...is what's hurting developer's the most. If |a commercial product is bested by a PD product, then as Dave McMahan |says...Drawinian selection rules all. But Piracy...Piracy takes the best of |the gene pool and hamstrings it or, in many cases kills it. You couldn't have said it better, Perry. Thank you. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) (06/09/90)
(Sorry Chuck, the horse isn't dead yet :-) ) In article <1377@madnix.UUCP> perry@madnix.UUCP (Perry Kivolowitz) writes: [ text deleted ] >In the above, lies the theory we hit on a long time ago which helps keep >ASDG's doors open. That is: Escalate far beyond your competitor's ability >to counter. Good advice as usual, Perry. I would like to add that the performance/feature highground isn't the sole answer all the time. Cases in point are companies who might invest a great deal of research or development time setting up standards, defining a market, building new technology, etc. There are companies that build the latest instantiation of a stereo receiver with all the trendy features and there is also the company that invented the original technology. Both deserve their position in the marketplace. Patents are part of the answer at least for protection from competitors. But does a patent offer protection from HackerDudes? >In general, the easier as application is to knock off, the more likely it >will be knocked off. As you get to more sophisticated applications, the >less likely it is that you will face PD (or any other) competition. The reservation I have with this point, though it is certainly a correct observation, is that one is setting up a situation where you're running a race against a opponent with a different resource profile than you're operating under. In cases where you code better, faster, have superior access to resources/information, etc than the PD community can then you win. Otherwise, you're Unipress emacs vs GNU emacs. Generally speaking though, I agree: the more unique, hard to reproduce components any product encompasses, the safer its position against all competitors be they commercial or otherwise. Our networking products have all encompassed some unique or hard to reproduce aspects that made them difficult to clone functionally. >Perry Kivolowitz, ASDG Inc. Rick Spanbauer Ameristar Technology
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (06/13/90)
In article <141@cbmcel.UUCP> stoller@cbmcel.UUCP (Martin S. Stoller) writes:
Ok. So much said. But what about those (there are many) programs which
once were PD or at least ShareWare, and are now COMMERCIAL. I don't mean
those which have been commercialized by the original programmers (CYGNUS ED
comes to mind, I'm still using VI on an AMIX, but one day I'll buy that super
maniacal programmer's ED. I've heard it can now use other fonts. NEAT-O!), I
mean those which have been COMMERCIALIZED by people which had gotten the
idea from a PD program (or thought of it themselves, it doesn't really matter),
after the PD version had been scoring the world. What is their excuse???
So chew on that!!! (please don't flame me, I've been working all night...>;-} )
So? If the code was PD, then not only is it legal for them to take the
idea, it's legal for them to take the _code_ and turn it into a
commercial product. That's what PD is all about [At least in the US;
I've seen indications this isn't the case elsewhere.]
As for just taking the idea - so what? Just as there are people who'd
rather have a source code version they can change and support
themselves, their are people who'd rather have a binary that someone
else takes responsibility for making run correctly, and is willing to
answer questions about, and otherwise provide support for.
Being a firm believer in competition, I think both are good things to
have around. And isn't "more choices in software" one of the primary
reasons people buy hardware other than an Amiga? Taking a PD program
commercial helps solve this problem.
<mike
--
When logic and proportion have fallen softly dead, Mike Meyer
And the white knight is talking backwards, mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
And the red queen's off her head, decwrl!mwm
Remember what the dormouse said.Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com (06/14/90)
> I even bought one eminently playable game for $15.00 early in my Amiga's > career .... except for profits, the cost of getting that game to me was > the same as the cost of getting that $45.00 game .... I have decided to > start focusing my attention on the $30.00 and under market. If enough > folks did the same ... Sorry, so many logical flaws here I feel rather compelled to respond. How can you possibly assume that development, research, packaging, distribu- tion costs are equal from one situation to another? There are wide diver- gences in development time (a year, 2 weeks, 3 years). There are wide divergences in support costs (1-800, long distance, upgrades, etc.). There are wide divergences in manufacturing costs. A company with a dozen products can get volume discounts on labels, diskettes, boxes, etc. A small company with one product cannot. Packaging can cost them 2 to 3 times as much as the cost to a large, established company. You also made a very large unsupported assumption. You assumed the $15.00 game was commercially viable and therefore that everyone could sell products in this price range. Bzzzt, wrong. The low price tag could reflect poor business practices. It could reflect a company not viable over the long term. It could be a loss leader to get people in the store, or to notice the company, or ... Go ahead and concentrate on the under $30 market. That's your prerogative. There will always be mispriced products, or poor products, or cheap products or fledgling companies who haven't learned all the hidden costs. But don't expect, in this instance, for it to make much difference. On a $30.00 product, the wholesaler only gets $12.00. This has to pay long distance, rent, salaries, diskettes, labels, manuals, packaging, advertising, upgrades if there are bug fixes, bad debts, defective merchandise returns, future r & d and a whooooole lot more. Under normal commercial conditions, $12.00 doesn't go very far, and it definitely won't cover salaries and office space. Julie Petersen (LadyHawke)
plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes Plouff) (06/14/90)
In article <1377@madnix.UUCP>, perry@madnix.UUCP (Perry Kivolowitz) writes... >>I do not know of a company with a superior product that has folded due to >>PD competition. >In the above, lies the theory we hit on a long time ago which helps keep >ASDG's doors open. That is: Escalate far beyond your competitor's ability >to counter. Exactly why ASDG products enjoy such a good reputation. >... Competition from PD is not our problem. We put enough into our >products to provide genuine worth for money paid. What *IS* our problem is >when people acquire our products without paying. Call it whatever you >want. It is plain ****ing out and out theft. And yes, it literally does >take food from my nine month old son's mouth. What do you estimate is ASDG's revenue lost to piracy? How do you arrive at this figure? It's not at all clear from the ongoing piracy threads here just what is the extent of the problem, and there is much evidence that software companies do not consider piracy a major problem. I point to the large number of titles without copy protection. (Games, however, seem to live in a different world. I don't want to get into the topic of copy protection on games.) In "No Deposit, No Return," an article in _Midnight Engineer_, May/June issue, the argument from a sometime software entrepreneur goes that a) most pirates are collectors who don't actually use their stolen software for anything useful, and b) people who ask for refunds, or technical support while unregistered, are by and large honest. Factual comments? -- Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass. plouff%kali.enet.dec@decwrl.dec.com "Who came out with that term, 'MULTIMEDIA', btw??? I prefer amiga's old slang: DEMO." -Viet Ho in comp.sys.amiga
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (06/14/90)
In <12457@shlump.nac.dec.com> plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes Plouff) quotes a magazine article that says >b) people who ask for refunds, or technical support while unregistered, >are by and large honest. Not in my experience or a couple friends'... "Yeah, I'm having a problem with XXX." "OK, can I have your registration number?" "uh-wuh-uh-wuh-uh-wuh, let me call you back..." "Fine." -CLICK- I have a new version of this which is much better, which is to get their name, address and phone number *before* asking for the registration number. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org (John Meissen) (06/15/90)
Lattice was always acutely aware of the problems of software piracy. Our "unofficial" attitude, however, was that if someone was going to steal software we would rather they stole ours than the competitor's. In general if someone "borrowed" a copy they probably were not going to purchase a legitimate one anyway. And eventually, when they were in a position to put out money, they would probably like to get the documentation and support that went with a legitimate copy. When that happened we prefered that they were already comfortable with ours, rather than the competition's. This doesn't mean that we condoned piracy, just that in general a stolen copy didn't mean a lost sale because they probably weren't going to buy it anyway. If you provide quality documentation and exceptional support to legitimate users you will often get a sale out of a stolen copy anyway. -- John Meissen .............................. Oregon Advanced Computing Institute jmeissen@oacis.org (Internet) | ..!sequent!oacis!jmeissen (UUCP) | "Go Blazers!!" jmeissen (BIX) |
bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) (06/15/90)
In article <12457@shlump.nac.dec.com> plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes Plouff) writes: > >evidence that software companies do not consider piracy a major problem. >I point to the large number of titles without copy protection. (Games, Woa there. The lack of copy protection on productivity software is a result of the demands of the purchasing public and the mode of use, NOT because the software companies think piracy is not a problem. Just how irritated would you get if you bought a $150 Word Processor, but found you could not install it on your hard disk because of disk based copy protection? Or how long would it take for you to trash your new spreadsheet if everytime you went to make your daily entries you had to enter a few choice phrases from the manual? Bob Luneski bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/17/90)
In article <30762@cup.portal.com> Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com writes: [This next part was mine, but my article isn't in the references nor was I attributee here - xanthian] >> I even bought one eminently playable game for $15.00 early in my Amiga's >> career .... except for profits, the cost of getting that game to me was >> the same as the cost of getting that $45.00 game .... I have decided to >> start focusing my attention on the $30.00 and under market. If enough >> folks did the same ... > >Sorry, so many logical flaws here I feel rather compelled to respond. > >How can you possibly assume that development, research, packaging, distribu- >tion costs are equal from one situation to another? There are wide diver- >gences in development time (a year, 2 weeks, 3 years). There are wide >divergences in support costs (1-800, long distance, upgrades, etc.). There >are wide divergences in manufacturing costs. A company with a dozen products >can get volume discounts on labels, diskettes, boxes, etc. A small company >with one product cannot. Packaging can cost them 2 to 3 times as much as >the cost to a large, established company. To the contrary, this game was from a hole in the wall company I never had heard of, but which had several games in a rack at a store I was in, all in the same price range. Being small, I must assume that all the "economies of scale to which you refer above were working _against_ them, not for them. 800 level phone support for a game is ludicrous! It is just such poor judgement on the part of management that continues to escalate the distribution costs of games. Wide divergences in manufacturing costs point right back to rotten management, with no interest in providing a cost controlled product to the customer. As long as we keep paying outrageous prices, companies will keep finding ways to charge them and justify them. >You also made a very large unsupported assumption. You assumed the $15.00 >game was commercially viable and therefore that everyone could sell products >in this price range. Bzzzt, wrong. The low price tag could reflect poor >business practices. It could reflect a company not viable over the long >term. It could be a loss leader to get people in the store, or to notice >the company, or ... The game was certainly commercially viable _to me_! The price was a large factor in my buying decision. It is the _high_ price tag that indicates poor business practices; if Joe can sell a tire at $40, and Firestone sells one at $120, and they both keep your car in rubber for 40,000 miles, the one with the poor business practices isn't Joe. It is this "all the traffic will bear" attitude on the part of American business that lets the Japanese and others trounce us in our own markets. >Go ahead and concentrate on the under $30 market. That's your prerogative. >There will always be mispriced products, or poor products, or cheap products >or fledgling companies who haven't learned all the hidden costs. But don't >expect, in this instance, for it to make much difference. On a $30.00 >product, the wholesaler only gets $12.00. This has to pay long distance, >rent, salaries, diskettes, labels, manuals, packaging, advertising, upgrades >if there are bug fixes, bad debts, defective merchandise returns, future >r & d and a whooooole lot more. Under normal commercial conditions, $12.00 >doesn't go very far, and it definitely won't cover salaries and office space. > Julie Petersen (LadyHawke) There is no reason for a wholesaler to require more than $2 to pass a product from a producer to a retailer; it is just such obscenities of the distribution system that create the ludicrous prices we are currently paying for our Amiga games. Why does the wholesaler pay for "diskettes, labels, manuals, packaging, advertising"? Those are producer costs. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>