farren@hoptoad.uucp (Mike Farren) (05/09/87)
It is worth remembering that the original name for shareware was
"Freeware", a term subsequently copywrighted by Andrew Flugelman, the
author of PC-TALK, the first shareware product (and probably one of
the most successful). It is also worth remembering that Andy's
original concept had nothing to do with any "obligation" to pay. His
point was that there was no obligation of any sort - if you wanted to
send money because you liked the program and found it of use, then
fine. If you liked the program and didn't send money, then fine. If
you didn't like the program and didn't send money, then fine.
If everyone concerned would take an attitude like this, there would be
a lot less heat all around. What the hell, I've done shareware, and
wasn't disappointed that no bucks came in. I wrote the utility for my
own pleasure and use, and hoped that it was of use for others.
Whether or not I made big bucks was NEVER the point.
--
----------------
"... if the church put in half the time on covetousness
Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..."
hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (05/10/87)
In article <2108@hoptoad.uucp> farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: > ...It is also worth remembering that [Flugelman's >concept of shareware] had nothing to do with any "obligation" to pay. And this is something that a lot of shareware authors forget. If your documentation says, "this contribution is voluntary", it makes no sense to fret when people don't pay. Is it voluntary, or is it not? If it isn't, you shouldn't be using the term "shareware" anyway. -- Rahul Dhesi ARPA: bsu-cs!dhesi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
apn@nonvon.UUCP (root) (05/10/87)
in article <571@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) says: > > And this is something that a lot of shareware authors forget. If > your documentation says, "this contribution is voluntary", it makes no > sense to fret when people don't pay. Is it voluntary, or is it not? > If it isn't, you shouldn't be using the term "shareware" anyway. I tend to only rarely pay for shareware. I only rarely pay for "real-life" software. My usual criteria are 1) usefull 2) I have a use for it. 3) I have M1 ( ok, money ... for non economic types ) for example.. I find an interesting shareware game and I play it for 20 minutes and then decide that it is not worth the disk space. Again, typical of most computer games. I feel no obligation to contribute. similiar example.... same as first, but add in sources. This is different .. If this s/w can now be changed and molded to your specific needs and is a good starting point then I will send in a contribution. frequently found case: Shareware is a hoax for "demo" versions of a companies s/w package in disguise a something usefull. This is something I hate...... they should send ME money to evaluate it. This especially bad if it happens over usenet as in the case of some well known prolog.. so to recap: I will gladly donate to shareware authors if I have a REAL use for the software and if sources are provided. Alex P Novickis DIS-CLAIMER: opinions you say ?? UUCP: {ihnp4,ames,qantel,sun,seismo,amdahl,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!nonvon!apn {* Only those who attempt the absurd ... will achieve the impossible *} {* I think... I think it's in my basement... Let me go upstairs and check. *} {* -escher *}
mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael R. Volow) (05/11/87)
The discussion seems to imply two kinds of shareware: 1) Small utility programs that do neat things, but which would not truly be marketable as such as stand-alone programs. From the comments of the previous discussants, these programs seem to be written as much for the satis- faction of the programmer, as for their remunerative potential. Satisfied users should show some appreciation (financial) to the creator of such programs; for without these programs, life with MS-DOS would be darn awkward. 2) The second type of shareware seems to be a medium-sized commercial program with some remunerative potential. And the shareware distrib- ution of such programs represents an invitation to try out the pack- age. In some cases, the power or documentation of the shareware-distributed package has been restricted by the author to encourage remuneration by the user. In the real world, I suspect that the second type of shareware would be more likely to stimulate remuneration than the first type; and this seems to be the experience described by the discussants. For example, users might be more likely to register for programs such as Procomm or PC-Write, than for useful but small utility programs. --Mike Volow, Psychiatry, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center Durham, NC, 27712 919 383 3568 mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP
walton@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Walton) (05/11/87)
I thought I'd pass on a comment from Bill Volk of Aegis Development
which he made on BIX. He was talking about piracy of commercial
software, but the same comment applies to shareware.
"Look, it's simple economics. If the only value of the product is on
the magnetic media, then it will be copied...[points out you need
support, updates, distribution, etc. in purchase price, then] Sonix
is $79.95, for which you get a 250+ page manual. How many copies do
you think will be pirated?"
Steve Walton, guest as walton@tybalt.caltech.edu
AMETEK Computer Research Division, ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu
"Long signatures are definitely frowned upon"--USENET posting rulesfarren@hoptoad.UUCP (05/12/87)
In article <2656@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> walton@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Steve Walton) writes: >[Bill Volk of Aegis says:] >"Look, it's simple economics. If the only value of the product is on >the magnetic media, then it will be copied...[points out you need >support, updates, distribution, etc. in purchase price, then] Sonix >is $79.95, for which you get a 250+ page manual. How many copies do >you think will be pirated?" Considering the amount of stink that's being raised *already* about the pirating of SONIX, my answer would probably be "billyuns and billyuns". With a tip of the Farren hat to Carl Sagan, -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"