long@sask.UUCP (Warren Long) (02/05/88)
This is a complaint about the 'protection' used by one author for his shareware product: > Perhaps the worst I have ever seen of this type is a program, DS, a > progam to help move, delete, copy, etc. files on hard disks. While the > program was quite good, and the request for money was small ($15), the > program had a 10 second delay at the beginning and the end of a run. > Instructions for disabling this pause were available only after you > coughed up the $15. This, to me, is a type of blackmail. Since the > use of this program is to be a quick utility that works faster and > easier than DOS commands, a delay like this was way out of line. > Needless to say, I don't use the program, and would never suggest that > anyone else do. I am impressed with the method used, and am surprised at the audacity of the above user. The author has found a very clever way of protecting his SHAREWARE product, which allows a user to sample the product, yet requires an end-user to pay IF and only IF he/she intends to use it regularly. Warren Long (long@sask) -- =-=-=-=-=-Warren Long at University of Saskatchewan, Canada-=-=-=-=- Home: 78 Carleton Dr.,Saskatoon, Sasakatchewan, S7H 3N6 Phone: (306)-955-1237 =-=-=-=-=-U-Email: ...!ihnp4!alberta!sask!long -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/08/88)
In article <1012@sask.UUCP> long@sask.UUCP (Warren Long) writes: >> progam to help move, delete, copy, etc. files on hard disks. While the >> program was quite good, and the request for money was small ($15), the >> program had a 10 second delay at the beginning and the end of a run. >> ... >> Needless to say, I don't use the program, and would never suggest that >> anyone else do. >I am impressed with the method used, and am surprised at the audacity >of the above user. The author has found a very clever way of >protecting his SHAREWARE product, which allows a user to sample the >product, yet requires an end-user to pay IF and only IF he/she intends >to use it regularly. I disagree. The author has released a product that is virtually unusable. I would use it once or twice, get disgusted, and toss it out on general principle. So would most of the people I work with, and most of my friends. The fact is, shareware licenses are unenforceable. People know they're not going to get caught, so legal threats don't bother them. They aren't made to feel guilty by whining pleas for money. Shareware is a noble but stupid idea. It's based on a flawed view of users. It's almost never worked, and I'm pretty certain that it never will. If I had a product that I wanted to sell, I'd try to market it through one of the major vendors, or I'd buy 2x3" ad in Amazing Computing or Amigaworld and take my chances. Perhaps I'd distribute limited capability demo copies for free. I think that would be a great way to distribute a game (assuming it's something playable). I would *NOT* distribute via shareware. Statistically, is a stupid way to try to make money. If I wanted people to have the program for free, I'd copyright it and provide for free redistribution. No point in pretending that users are something they are not, and no point in looking forward to money that I'm not going to get. Sean -- -- Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet -- (the Empire guy) {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!sean -- University of Kentucky in Lexington Kentucky, USA -- "If something can go will, it wrong."
ttang@puff.cs.wisc.edu (Theodore Tang) (02/09/88)
I don't know, it looks like crippleware, and many authors are now resorting to that method for enforcing shareware. I'd like to hear from anyone who has experienced unique methods of crippling software and I'll post a summary on the net. Theodore Tang University of Wisconsin at Madison USENET: ttang@puff.wisc.edu.UUCP FIDONET: 1:121/3 (Opus's Internat'l Archives BBS) BBS: Opus's Internat'l Archives BBS (608)251-4755 9600 USR HST MNP 5 "No, no, it wasn't me!" -anonymous
hallett@hamlet.steinmetz (Jeff A. Hallett) (02/09/88)
In article <1012@sask.UUCP> long@sask.UUCP (Warren Long) writes: >> >> Perhaps the worst I have ever seen of this type is a program, DS, a >> progam to help move, delete, copy, etc. files on hard disks. While the >> program was quite good, and the request for money was small ($15), the >> program had a 10 second delay at the beginning and the end of a run. >> Instructions for disabling this pause were available only after you >> coughed up the $15. This, to me, is a type of blackmail. Since the >> use of this program is to be a quick utility that works faster and >> easier than DOS commands, a delay like this was way out of line. >> Needless to say, I don't use the program, and would never suggest that >> anyone else do. > >I am impressed with the method used, and am surprised at the audacity >of the above user. The author has found a very clever way of >protecting his SHAREWARE product, which allows a user to sample the >product, yet requires an end-user to pay IF and only IF he/she intends >to use it regularly. Again, this treads a fine line. I'm assuming (via the closed world assumption) that the program was not disabled in any way. In that case, what the author did is indeed clever; he discouraged theft. I see no problem with calling this shareware - if people register like they are supposed to, then the discouragment is removed. If they do not, well, then they take what they get - a working program with an annoyance that in NO WAY affects its functionality. In a different light, authors that remove functionality (like FontDisplay) until you pay, or authors who withhold documentation for a complex system (Scholar's Aid) have no right whatsoever to call their products ShareWare. They are forcing you to pay before you can fully use their product. There is no difference between this and the "Draw It Again, Sam" demo that was posted. At this point, they are no longer getting "donations" for their work, they are soliciting purchase. This makes them a commerical operation, but one which offers no benefits of a real such organization. Jeffrey A. Hallett | ARPA: hallett@ge-crd.arpa Software Technology Program | UUCP: desdemona!hallett@steinmetz.uucp GE Corporate Research and Development | (518) 387-5654 +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Credo Quia Absurdum Est | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/10/88)
> > I don't know, it looks like crippleware, and many authors are now resorting to > that method for enforcing shareware. I'd like to hear from anyone who has > experienced unique methods of crippling software and I'll post a summary on the > net. > > Theodore Tang My two cents about shareware: I originally distributed my Epson MX-80 to PostScript translator (in a very early form) as shareware. Total amount received: $0. Do I know that anyone used it? Well, I got calls from people asking when I was going to add graphics modes. I got a question or two about it, and I found it was floating around various bulletin boards. So now, it's a commercial program, with nicely printed manuals, and instead of asking $20, as I did when it was shareware, I sell it for $50, and it brings in a bit of money. Shareware will only work when people are willing to send in money. I'm sure there are people who manage to make some money this way -- and I'm sure the people that send in contributions are about 1% of the total regular users. Clayton E. Cramer
jal3495@ritcv.UUCP (Jeff Leyser) (02/13/88)
In post <1012@sask.UUCP>, long@sask.UUCP (Warren Long) says: ! !This is a complaint about the 'protection' used by one author for !his shareware product: ! !> Perhaps the worst I have ever seen of this type is a program, DS, a !> progam to help move, delete, copy, etc. files on hard disks. While the !> program was quite good, and the request for money was small ($15), the !> program had a 10 second delay at the beginning and the end of a run. !> Instructions for disabling this pause were available only after you !> coughed up the $15. This, to me, is a type of blackmail. Since the !> use of this program is to be a quick utility that works faster and !> easier than DOS commands, a delay like this was way out of line. !> Needless to say, I don't use the program, and would never suggest that !> anyone else do. ! !I am impressed with the method used, and am surprised at the audacity !of the above user. The author has found a very clever way of !protecting his SHAREWARE product, which allows a user to sample the !product, yet requires an end-user to pay IF and only IF he/she intends !to use it regularly. First off, _I_ am the above user. Please be sure to attribute your quotes.... My complaint with this program is, I think, made clear. This util. is designed to be a quicker and easier way of managing a hard disk. Placing pauses of that length (10 seconds is LONG time), defeats that purpose. It's much like marketing a shareware wordprocesor, but you can only use the 'save' function if you send me $20 bucks. Let's comapare this to the plea for money used by ZCOMM, a shareware telecommunications package. This program beeps and displays a copyright/send-money mesage at startup. I need to hit a key before I can use the program. Upon payment, I can get this feature disabled. This not-sp-gentle reminder does not interfer with the actual use of the program, it simply beats me over the head. I will be registering my copy of ZCOMM shortly (when Unca' Sam sends me my refund. Can you say broke :^), and in the meantime I can use the program to its full extent (well, almost. Registering gets you some bells+whistles too). +-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+--+ | Jeff Leyser, professional student {uunet!hnsurg3,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!jeffl | | "Dick, your FIRED!" - RoboCop OR {backbone}!rochester!ritcv!jal3495 | | I can't have opinions. I didn't pay my opinion fee this term. | +-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+--+
ugpete@sunybcs.uucp (Peter Theobald) (02/13/88)
<here little line eater... here little line eater>
How many times have you read this on the net:
'...<stuff about how OTHERS don't pay for shareware>...
I, however, am sending in my money for <program x> just as
soon as <condition y>'
The conditions I have read vary from 'as soon as my loan comes' to
'as soon as I put a stamp on the envelope.' If I had a nickle for
every time I read this, I'd make alot more money than any shareware
author.
How many people have ACTUALLY sent money? Not Real Soon Now.
-Pete
Peter Theobald SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
internet: ugpete@cs.buffalo.edu bitnet: ugpete@sunybcs.BITNET
uucp: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!ugpete
csnet: ugpete@buffalo.CSNETshimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt) (02/14/88)
Hi! Just these days I am about to decide what to do with a program I am writing now. It is supposed to be a super-duper-terminal (although now it is far beyond of being that :-). I released a Version 0.9 to the PD. In the poster I told people to write if they were interested in the Version 1.0. At this time I intended to make the 1.0 shareware (say for $20). The results were NULL. On the other side all people who I know personally, who saw the program told me not to be so stupid to give it away. "Don't be stupid, sell it!". So now, I am about to decide to sell it. The message about the postscript-driver was a further hint in this direction. I think Share- ware is a good concept, but people are not build for it. Urs, Markus PS: If anyone likes to test the 0.9 let me hear. PPS: Could anyone mail me the address of Fred Fish?
kudla@pawl18.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (02/15/88)
In article <8503@sunybcs.UUCP> ugpete@joey.UUCP (Peter Theobald) writes: >'as soon as I put a stamp on the envelope.' If I had a nickle for >every time I read this, I'd make alot more money than any shareware >author. > How many people have ACTUALLY sent money? Not Real Soon Now. I have, and for a Commodore 64 programme no less! (or is it "no more"?) It was a total of $30, for the 6485 BBS way back in '86. And I made money off my own "MacDoodle 1.3", which I took in about $50 for. ------------Robert J. Kudla - Pseudo-Freshman Extraordinaire------------- Screw the disclaimers- flame at will!! Itt@RPITSMTS.BITNET And you may ask yourself- How do I work this? FU7Z%mts@itsgw.rpi.edu (I sure as hell do...) kudla@pawl.rpi.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------
czei@cbdkc1.ATT.COM (Michael Czeiszperger) (02/17/88)
In article <8503@sunybcs.UUCP> ugpete@joey.UUCP (Peter Theobald) writes: > How many people have ACTUALLY sent money? Not Real Soon Now. > When I was working at Ohio State University several months ago, I needed to format a Mac hard disk that we put together with an Adaptec 4000 controller. The commercial program we were provided with would not format the unit, and only provided headaches. The day after I advertised the problem on the net, a program arrived via mail from Ephram Vishniac designed to do exactly what we wanted. After following his instructions, the program worked perfectly. Although he had asked for $10, I had the school send out $15; I would have sent $50, but the budget has been severely cut this year and there wasn't room. I am extremely grateful to Mr. Vishniac and other shareware authors who provide a useful service to the computer community. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michael S. Czeiszperger | "HELP! I'm stuck in 3B HELL !!!" Contracted to Bell | Phone: (614) 860-5390 (formerly with Ohio Labs | UUCP: cbosgd!dkc1!czei State University) 6200 E. Broad Street | Disclaimer: "The above opinions are those of Columbus, OH RM 1C393 | a large rodent with sharp teeth" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bradn@tekig4.TEK.COM (Bradford Needham) (02/17/88)
In article <204@ritcv.UUCP> jal3495@ritcv.UUCP (Jeff Leyser) writes: >My complaint with this program is, I think, made clear. This util. is >designed to be a quicker and easier way of managing a hard disk. Placing >pauses of that length (10 seconds is LONG time), defeats that purpose. It's >much like marketing a shareware wordprocesor, but you can only use the >'save' function if you send me $20 bucks. This note prompts me to write a couple of comments. Please followup to comp.sys.misc only -- I'm sure the folks in the other comp... groups are just as tired of this discussion as us in comp.sys.mac. I don't see the problem with marketing a shareware wordprocessor that doesn't have the "Save" feature. It's a free market and people can offer whatever they like for whatever price they like. If you don't like a particular product offering, send a letter to the seller, saying what you think. For example, I have sent several letters to Electronic Arts about their Mac-crippling copy-protection scheme. The last letter I sent them explains that I recently bought Studio Session (from a competitor) rather than their Delux Music Construction Set because of their refusal to remove their incompatibility-causing copy-protection. This feedback method is called "Voting with your wallet", and is very effective. A lot of postings in this discussion seem to be trying to pin particular definitions on the terms "Shareware", "Freeware", "Demoware", and others, yet I've never seen commonly-accepted definitions for these words. How do you feel about these: "DemoWare" - a demonstration version of a program. This version lacks certain important features (e.g., "Save") or it has a limited life (e.g., after June, 1988 it fails to work anymore). If you send the money in, you get a complete version of the program. "ShareWare" - a complete version of a program. No missing features, no booby-traps. If you send in the money, you get recorded as a licensed user. This license may provide you with extra stuff (e.g., updates or manuals) but it doesn't give you anything that makes your initial copy of the program work any better. "ThugWare" - a program that deliberately attempts to penalize the user for using the program, in a mistaken attempt to punish software pirates. E.g., a program that erases your disk and prints "The wages of sin is death". It's my opinion that anyone who builds such software is asking for a punitive-damages suit. "Free" - a program that you can copy and use without sending anyone any money. This category includes both copyrighted-but-free programs and public-domain programs. A Free program never asks for money. "Public Domain" - Let's use this term with its legally-correct meaning: public intellectual property. In the USA, anyone can do anything they want to a public domain program. >...I will be registering my copy of ZCOMM shortly.... It looks like this user is another of the crowds of "the check's in the mail" shareware users. No wonder nobody is making money on shareware. Shareware would be a great idea in the best of all possible worlds, but the concept has been so degraded by every weekend programmer who thinks he can get a few bucks for his 2-hour hatchet job and by every toothless legalistic message that says "send $15 or you'll hate yourself and I'll come after you with my lawyers" and by all the two-faced users who say "this program is great, but I just don't have the money right now" that shareware's day has come and gone. Expect to see nothing but Free, DemoWare, and ThugWare in the future. By the way, is anybody paying taxes on their shareware spoils, or is this all black-market money? Brad Needham bradn@tekig4.TEK.COM ------------ DISCLAIMER: The opinions above are the result of a bad day. Take them with a grain of salt. The author is at this moment regretting ever posting to the net.
morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (02/17/88)
In article <1924@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >My two cents about shareware: I originally distributed my Epson MX-80 >to PostScript translator (in a very early form) as shareware. Total >amount received: $0. So why was it that you wrote the thing? For your own benefit, right? Total extra effort on your part, 0; total monetary benefit to you, 0. Sounds about right to me. Had you gone and added all of the stuff that people asked for and still not gotten any contributions, then you would have something to complain about. I use one piece of shareware, Handshake. I've made my contribution, but it is a commercial quality program that works amazingly well, and the author has put in many enhancements for his users, even some that he felt didn't belong there. But users wanted them and they got them. If you had to fix your program up to sell it commercially, then it really wasn't worth anything in the first place, was it? >Clayton E. Cramer -- Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. ...!utgpu!telly \ !brambo!morgan ...!{uunet!mnetor, watmath!utai}!lsuc!ncrcan / "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (02/17/88)
In article <883@rmi.UUCP> shimoda@rmi.UUCP (Markus Schmidt) writes: >Just these days I am about to decide what to do with a program I am >writing now. It is supposed to be a super-duper-terminal (although >now it is far beyond of being that :-). [...] >The results were NULL. Well, what did you expect? What with qmodem, procomm, and pibterm, you've got some excellent competition. You, like the other person who was disappointed by the lack of "sales" of their terminal emulator (no matter how nifty), were targetting a oversaturated market. How about writing a program that no-one has even thought about writing? Shareware is just another marketing scheme, not a miracle worker. -- -russ AT&T: (315)268-6591 BITNET: NELSON@CLUTX Internet: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu GEnie: BH01 Compu$erve: 70441,205
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/23/88)
> In article <1924@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >My two cents about shareware: I originally distributed my Epson MX-80 > >to PostScript translator (in a very early form) as shareware. Total > >amount received: $0. > > So why was it that you wrote the thing? For your own benefit, right? > Total extra effort on your part, 0; total monetary benefit to you, 0. > Sounds about right to me. Had you gone and added all of the stuff that > people asked for and still not gotten any contributions, then you > would have something to complain about. Wrong. To get something ready for use by others involves: 1. Writing a manual. 2. Making a serious attempt to verify that everything works -- not just what you used. I put substantial effort into it before distributing it as shareware -- easily 20-40 hours. (Verifying all the funny combinations of Epson control codes is not trivial). > If you had to fix your program up to sell it commercially, then it > really wasn't worth anything in the first place, was it? > I added features, and fixed a couple of bugs. Not at all the same thing. You are really a nasty person. Sure you don't live in New York City? > >Clayton E. Cramer > > -- > Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. ...!utgpu!telly \ !brambo!morgan > ...!{uunet!mnetor, watmath!utai}!lsuc!ncrcan / > "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's." Clayton E. Cramer
bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) (02/23/88)
Just last week, I sent in about $200 for various and sundry shareware programs.
However, I had been using many of them for an entire *year* (since I got my
Amiga) before I got around to it. This is a general problem: even the best-
intentioned people don't have any motivation to pay for shareware soon. Had
I stopped using my Amiga---or even some of the software---before the year was
out, the authors would never have been paid for their efforts.
For example, I stopped using vdk: some time ago. I went commercial in the
meantime, and John Toebes went around hitting up on everybody for $10, but had
that not occured, I never would have paid for it even though I used it for six
months. (vdk:, by allowing the ramdisk to survive warm boots also insures
that memory fragmentation survives warm boots, in case you wanna know why I
stopped using it.)
Also, I fail to distinguish between shareware and freeware. Except for one
group of simple programs which specifically stated that the author wanted
no money for her efforts, I sent in contributions according to how useful I
found them to be regardless of the pleas that the authors made.
If people wish to be paid for their efforts, they need to do something to
motivate people to pay within a reasonable period of time. For example,
the program might start up with an informative HELP panel as shipped.
This would serve two purposes:
1. For people who are new to the product, it tells them how to use it.
2. For people who have been using it for a long time, it gets annoying.
When the users register, they are given an incantation to get rid of the
automatic HELP on startup. This has the beauty that it is actually
*helpful* for people who are starting to use it, but it still motivates
people to pay before it gets too old.
The other possibility is to only print the HELP if some companion file does
not exist, and then create it. If you notice that the companion-file is
more than, say, 45 days old, you could then start asking for people to
please send in contributions. Of course this can be easily defeated, but
the point is to spur honest people to getting around to it, not to keep
dishonest people from taking it.
Just one thing: If it is shareware (and you are going to do any of these
things) rather than freeware, you *MUST* make this clear in any summaries
on BBS's, at the top of the README file, in net communication, &c. It is
not fair to pull such tactics on unsuspecting users. If you do, they will
rightly resent you and feel that you are not being honest, making them less
likely to pay you.
--
--Brian.
(Brian T. Schellenberger) ...!mcnc!rti!sas!bts
DISCLAIMER: Whereas Brian Schellenberger (hereinafter "the party of the first peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/27/88)
(ShareWar: a whole new concept) In article ... nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: > You, like the other person who was > disappointed by the lack of "sales" of their terminal emulator (no matter how > nifty), were targetting a oversaturated market. How about writing a program > that no-one has even thought about writing? As the "other person who was disappointed by the lack of ``sales''", I'm getting tired of the backhanded slams I'm getting from people. 1. This was two years ago. 2. This is still the only terminal program I've seen for the IBM-PC that emulates the VT100 well enough to keep EDT happy on both RSX and VAX/VMS. 3. This is still the only terminal program that understands that an IBM-PC has two serial ports... and allows you to use them both effectively. 4. And it's MUCH smaller than any of the "big name" programs out there. It runs quite happily in a 192K DoubleDOS partition. Given that COMMAND.COM and a bunch of buffers have to fit in there as well that's pretty good. It may (it's been a while) even run in 128K. 5. (to the people telling me nobody ever saw it) It was posted on UseNet. So you should have seen it. I was primarily "selling" it to see if I could get some feedback on what I could do to improve it. And, I must admit, to get some ego boost. I had previously sent stuff out freeware and gotten nary a nibble. I guess this disqualifies me as a shareware author, but I've not noted that anyone else has done that much better. Since then I've given up on shareware. A piece of freeware that I recently posted to comp.sources.amiga and Compu$erve has now produced commercial interest. Let's see if Software Terrorism works any better. -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.