RFORSTER@UNCAEDU.BITNET (04/29/87)
From: <RFORSTER%UNCAEDU.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
The same friend asked me to do this again and for the very same reason!
/Russ
From: Stephen Vermeulen, author of Vdraw and Chairman of AMUC
(AMUC == the AMiga Users of Calgary)
To: Netlanders, large and small, who are interested in the survival
of the Shareware software publication concept.
Hi all,
I am one of the silent majority who have read only access to this
group and hence you haven't seen me here before. Seeing the recent adds
for a disk format magazine called "Software Digest" in AmigaWorld
offering a best of the Public Domain and Shareware format and having had
some direct communications with Software Digest I thought it about time
that I bounce the following ideas off the net to see if others out there
feel the way I do or can offer some alternatives.
********** IMPORTANT *************
If you have thoughts on this please EMAIL them to me care of RUSS and
I will edit and repost an article on the subject. If you REALLY feel
it needs general net discussion then post it generally, remember I don't
want to overload the net on this one so EMAIL FIRST, POST LATER!!!!!
******** THE PROBLEM ********
Is Shareware about to die out? We have all read of Perry's RRD plight,
the last time I heard he might have reached 20 contributions for an
excellent product. (I don't use his RRD, I got an offical VDK: beta with
my PacificCypress 2M board). I have heard second hand, that the fellow
who brought us CosmoRoids "reports fairly dismal returns". My own
experience with Vdraw amounts to 18 sponsors in nearly one year, although
the most recent Fish Disk version (1.19) did increase the rate, and I can
see why. Still, the return might amount to 2% of the development costs
(if that...).
We have a few other fellows on the net like BOLS EWACS, Matt Dillon,
Dave Wecker... who have provided some really good stuff gratis, but
how long will this last without a tangible carrot on the stick?
What I fear might happen is that when commercial (as opposed to Fred
Fish) distribution of Shareware and Public Domain programs starts to
happen some people are going to start feeling ripped off and the, so far
excellent, stream of good, cheap software is going to dry up.
********* Do We Really Need Shareware? *********
Yes we do! The primary reason is that only the Shareware distribution
system can avoid the high overheads that commercial software distribution
entails. The primary benifits to the end user are that he gets to test
the software before buying it and MOST IMPORTANTLY applications for which
there is little apparent demand can still be distributed, for example the
AmigaMonitor program (it saved my hide once so I paid up).
The benefits to the free lance hacker are largly unrestricted
freedom of expression and the ensuing joy of creating the program HE/SHE
wants to, as well as some possibility of financial returns (ya got to
pay for that Amiga somehow), and FAME!
Well, we are back to the problem again, you just can't eat Fame.
******** So What Do We Do ? *********
The solution I am proposing is that we Shareware programmers should
demand some form of royalty payment directly from those who would like to
distribute our works. The size of the payment could be quite small so
as not to add greatly to the costs of the disks and hence make it more
likely that the distributer would have a greater sales volume and user
copying of the distributed disks would be less.
It is my opinion that this royalty could do great things for the
Shareware domain in general. The promise of some rewards would improve
the quality of existing works, would bring new ideas out of the dark,
would speed the debugging and enhancement process, and might prevent
some authors from going commercial.
In consideration of the royalty is seems fair that the distributer
be given exclusvive rights to distribute that particular version (FLAME
PROOF SUIT ON)
What level of royalties is that should be demanded is a difficult
question. This really depends on the volumes of disks that are handled
by the distributer. Considering that the installed base of Amigas is
now over 150,000 I would guess that a volume of 1% of this (1,500) would
be the lower limit and volumes of up to 10K copies might be attainable.
What are your thoughts on this Fred? What sort of volumes do the
Fish Disks hit?
******* Last Words For Now ********
Think about it, flame it, hack it, maybe even feed it to your local
line eater, but send me some EMAIL or Net FLAMES (my hide is pretty thick
these days) on the subject. I for one do not want to have to pay $100
a pop for software, but I would be willing to pay more for PD or Shareware
disks if I knew the authors were getting some of it!
Stephen (the Bug) Vermeulen
(CHHH) (AMUC)
I have all the protection I need,
I have a PAGE EATER, for a small
fee you can have one too...
--
"We must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis."
- Spock
Russell M Forster
BITnet: RForster@UNCAEDU.BITnet
ARPA: OC.Russ@CU20B.Columbia.Edu
CPS: Mount Royal College
4825 Richard Rd. SW.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T3E 6K6
Voice: (403) 240-6052
Opinions expressed herein are my own, and do not necessarily represent
those of my employer or anyone else for that.Gope opedillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (04/29/87)
I dunno. Shareware is a great concept, but as you noted there is not much incentive for people to pay up. This may be due to a basic problem in the shareware idiom... the idea that a person who sends in money gets 'special treatment'... better docs, more support, etc.... That's all fine and dandy, but has a major flaw. Does this mean the author is only going to post one version, get his clientele, and never post updates to a BBS again? probably not. And a certain amount of documentation would have to be posted to the BBS to make the program initially appealing. Purposefully Posting incomplete docs would simply anger many people. Sure there are lots of things you could offer to people who register by mail with $$, but it ultimately means leaving something out of the original posting. And I personally like to post revisions as soon as I make them... and post as complete a manual as I can. The programs I write I write for several reasons: (1) I need to use them myself, (2) I *love* to write neato programs, and (3) It gives me great pleasure to know that there are many people out using my programs and learning from them. Since I can't offer any 'special treatment', I don't try. If you want to send me $$, that's fine with me. If not, I won't hold it against you. Unfortunetly, being a programmer, I must take an impartial stand on the ethics of 'users' paying up (personally, I figure that since I'm posting useful programs to the net I don't have to (generally speaking), pay for the designated shareware stuff I'm using because many of those authors are using my stuff. The Reverse Applies too, of course). There are some things out on various BBS's designated 'shareware' that are a joke... too simplistic to *really* be worth sending $$ to the author for. I seem to remember somebody designating a simple colored lines demo as shareware and asking for $15... give me a break! And then, I like to think that the stuff I and many other people are doing (Steve Drew, Dave Wecker, Perry, and Mike Meyer to name a few), are forcing commercial software companies to put out decent stuff in light of their PD,SW,and FW competition. -Matt
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (04/29/87)
Warning: the following material is highly inflammatory. I consider shareware to be an evil second only to copy protection in the software world. Read, and see why. But you've been warned about this... In article <1611@rutgers.RUTGERS.EDU> RFORSTER@UNCAEDU.BITNET writes: > Is Shareware about to die out? We can hope so! > We have a few other fellows on the net like BOLS EWACS, Matt Dillon, >Dave Wecker... who have provided some really good stuff gratis, but >how long will this last without a tangible carrot on the stick? Well, it's been going on since before there were micros, and will probably be going on as long as there are computers. I don't know about the people you've named, but I suspect they write software for much the same reason I do: because they need the tools, or want to see if they can make the machine do magic. The only reason MicroGNU exists is because I wanted all my GNU habits to work on my Amiga (I still haven't figured out what drives the others in the project, who are responsible for it being what it is). Once I've built the tool/spiffy hack, there's no reason not to give it away. Of course, you also overlooked that there _is_ a carrot. Every letter I get telling me how much someone appreciates mg or small tex or <fill in the blank> is a kick. It makes me want to do that kind of thing again. > What I fear might happen is that when commercial (as opposed to Fred >Fish) distribution of Shareware and Public Domain programs starts to >happen some people are going to start feeling ripped off and the, so far >excellent, stream of good, cheap software is going to dry up. I doubt it. I was around when this started happening before. People writing good, PD software for the CP/M-80 market (there was no Piece of Crap back then) started seeing others sell their software, and make money off of it. There was an outcry on the net then, and some really nasty words flew around. People started putting copyright notices in their software saying that things "could not be sold, or packaged with software that is being sold." Gee, that seemed to have stopped that. And people kept right on turning out free software for CP/M-80 boxes. Now, the successors to the people who were selling PD software are trying to get do it again, except they are conspiring with the authors. > ********* Do We Really Need Shareware? ********* > Yes we do! Oh, horse pucky. There's exactly _three_ pieces of shareware I've even considered using. I'm not even sure the amiga arc is shareware, and only use it because others are obnoxious enough to use it. The other two are the ASDG RRD; which has a well-known, respected company behind it instead of some unknown hacker, and a logo implementation, which asked that you send money to a _charity_, and only if you haven't contributed a similar-sized project to the world. The logo I wouldn't have considered using if it had had the standard bloodsucker shareware notice. In other words, I don't need shareware. I've got a lot, but only because I try to keep a complete collection of Fish disks, and he puts shareware on them. If he didn't distribute shareware, I'd never notice. >The primary reason is that only the Shareware distribution >system can avoid the high overheads that commercial software distribution >entails. ST feathers. If it weren't for FREE software, the shareware channels wouldn't exist. The BBS/usenet/clubs existed, and were swapping software, before there was shareware. There were even people selling "Best of the PD" disks. If there is any justice, those same channels will exist long after shareware is a forgotten term. >The primary benifits to the end user are that he gets to test >the software before buying it and MOST IMPORTANTLY applications for which >there is little apparent demand can still be distributed, for example the >AmigaMonitor program (it saved my hide once so I paid up). The same arguments apply to free software. And given honest software dealers, it's possible to return software for a cash refund. I bought my first MANX compiler (for CP/M-80) on a "try it for 30 days" deal they had. In other words, these aren't really benefits of shareware, but benefits of free software and dealing with honest software vendors. > The benefits to the free lance hacker are largly unrestricted >freedom of expression and the ensuing joy of creating the program HE/SHE >wants to Gee, that's odd. I've got that now. And I don't ask for anything when I give away software, just that my name not be taken from the product. I don't even put in disclaimers saying you can't sell something, just so long as my name stays on it. Of course, if someone has a toy of mine that they want to sell, I won't argue if I get royalty checks. >as well as some possibility of financial returns (ya got to pay for >that Amiga somehow), Well, we are back to the problem again, you just >can't eat Fame. Ah, we get to the nub of the problem. Someone wants to make a few bucks off of there program, but aren't willing to pay for a real distribution. Got news for you: I've had two offers for real bucks directly attributable to giving away my software. Matt Dillon has gotten free software for it. People have suggested that Fred Fish be given free hardware, and have suggested that money be sent to Wecker (gotten any, Dave?). In other words, you _can_ eat fame. You just have to market it right. Or maybe you have to produce something both impressive and usefull to a large number of people. > The solution I am proposing is that we Shareware programmers should >demand some form of royalty payment directly from those who would like to >distribute our works. What you mean we, paleface? Of course, the software is yours, and you can do with it as you like. Just don't expect me to pay for it if you without providing evidence that you have real support. > In consideration of the royalty is seems fair that the distributer >be given exclusvive rights to distribute that particular version (FLAME >PROOF SUIT ON) Leor Zolman claimed that the worst thing he ever did was give Lifeboat exclusive rights to BDS C. It didn't turn them much profit, so they didn't bother advertising it. As a result, it didn't get much use, in spite of the fact that it was one of the first two CP/M-80 C compilers around, and ran faster than any other C compiler on CP/M-80 systems (probably still does), and came with a couple of disks full of spiffy utilities. At least, it didn't get much use until the contract lapsed, and leor started selling it himself. You also loose all the cheap distribution channels you were talking about earlier. What you're talking about doing is a publisher of cheap software. That's been tried before. I don't think any of the people who did it are still in business [anyone else remember JRT Pascal?]. It may work this time, but I wouldn't bet on it. Ok, so why do I think shareware is such a crock? Because, for the most part, it looks like somebody like me, who for some reason or another has written a program, is trying to turn a few bucks on it. Worse yet, they are using *other* peoples money to do the distribution. You get a piece of software off of the PD channels. It looks neat, but is missing some vital piece - like documentation, or a "save" command, or whatever. You've got instructions to send money to some person you've never heard of. If you send it in, you don't know if you'll get anything back at all, much less something that's actually worth what you're paying for. It's no damn wonder that so little money comes back in to the shareware bloodsuckers. Compare that to free software. It comes as complete as it's going to get. You get to decide if what you've got is worth using, and aren't asked for a dime. On the flip side, if you want a phone number and someone to scream at, you can pay for real software. If you're smart, you at least get a chance to look at it (and the documentation) before you buy it. You may even be able to return it. In short, shareware gives you the worst of both free software and paid-for software, and none of the benefits. It sucks software from the free software pool. All so somebody who's to lazy to try and bring something to the level where a software publisher is willing to carry it can still make money. Yuch. If you want to make money selling software, play the game for real. If you want free distribution, don't ask people to pay for your product. Death to shareware! <mike -- Take a magic carpet to the olden days Mike Meyer To a mythical land where everybody lays ucbvax!mwm Around in the clouds in a happy daze mwm@berkeley.edu In Kizmiaz ... Kizmiaz mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
spincus@crash.UUCP (04/30/87)
In article <1611@rutgers.RUTGERS.EDU> RFORSTER@UNCAEDU.BITNET writes: >From: <RFORSTER%UNCAEDU.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> > > ******** So What Do We Do ? ********* > > The solution I am proposing is that we Shareware programmers should >demand some form of royalty payment directly from those who would like to >distribute our works. The size of the payment could be quite small so >as not to add greatly to the costs of the disks and hence make it more >likely that the distributer would have a greater sales volume and user >copying of the distributed disks would be less. > > It is my opinion that this royalty could do great things for the >Shareware domain in general. The promise of some rewards would improve >the quality of existing works, would bring new ideas out of the dark, >would speed the debugging and enhancement process, and might prevent >some authors from going commercial. > > In consideration of the royalty is seems fair that the distributer >be given exclusvive rights to distribute that particular version (FLAME >PROOF SUIT ON) > What you are suggesting is exactly what Devware Inc. has proposed recently to the general Amiga development community (see posting a few days back). Scott Pincus President, Devware Inc. UUCP: crash!spincus ARPA: spincus@bbn.com US MAIL: PO Box 215 La Jolla, CA 92038-215 VOICE: (619)224-0796 evenings. Our motto: We will move no disk before its time
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (05/01/87)
in article <3375@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) says: > > We can hope so! Not always.... > I don't know about the people you've named, but I suspect they write > software for much the same reason I do: because they need the tools, > or want to see if they can make the machine do magic.... Once I've built > the tool/spiffy hack, there's no reason not to give it away. But there may be. Like, it works for me, and it does basically what I wrote it for. I could give it away, and hope that it would be really useful to the Amiga community. But maybe, with a little work, I could make it far easier to use, and even of commercial quality; beyond my immediate needs, but something that will appeal to more people. Now that that that's done, what do I do with it? I can still give it away... > Of course, you also overlooked that there _is_ a carrot. Every letter > I get telling me how much someone appreciates mg or small tex or <fill > in the blank> is a kick. It makes me want to do that kind of thing > again. Sure it does. I've put out a few how-tos/demos, a few ports of programs that I didn't originate, and one piece of shareware. I get the same satisfation when I'm written or called about any of this (unless its before around 10AM on the weekends...), and it certainly makes me want to do it again. So does and occasional $10 check or a can of Macadamia nuts. >> ********* Do We Really Need Shareware? ********* >> Yes we do! > > Oh, horse pucky. There's exactly _three_ pieces of shareware I've even > considered using... Hey, if you don't like the shareware, than you'd certainly not pay for it. The whole point of shareware is "if you like this, and you use it, then consider sending $$$". I've seen good and bad in PD, free, share, and commercial wares. And simple demo program that asks $50 for its use will not only not get that $50, but will tarnish the reputation of the person that wrote it. Just as a lousy piece of commercial/free software will tarnish the reputation of the company/person that put it out. Only, in the case of the commercial stuff, at least a few folks have forked over their $$$ before they discover the program is garbage. > The logo I wouldn't have considered using if it had had the standard > bloodsucker shareware notice. I don't understand this. Even if the shareware program promised denizens of demons would plague your sleep unless you paid for it, its still up to you. If the program's not worth using, then its not worth paying for. If nothing else, you get a laugh out of the fact that some bozo is asking money for this useless program. If the program is really great, that you shouldn't mind paying for it if you're morally (though probably not legally) obligated; a superset of these rules apply to commercial software anyway. > In other words, I don't need shareware. I've got a lot, but only > because I try to keep a complete collection of Fish disks, and he puts > shareware on them. If he didn't distribute shareware, I'd never > notice. That's fine. Truthfully, I've seen alot more free or PD stuff for the Amiga than shareware that I'd ever use. But the existence of this shareware doesn't bother me. Of course, like I said, I've tried the shareware method myself with moderate success. >>The primary benifits to the end user are that he gets to test >>the software before buying it and MOST IMPORTANTLY applications for which >>there is little apparent demand can still be distributed, for example the >>AmigaMonitor program (it saved my hide once so I paid up). > > The same arguments apply to free software. And given honest software > dealers, it's possible to return software for a cash refund. I bought > my first MANX compiler (for CP/M-80) on a "try it for 30 days" deal > they had. In other words, these aren't really benefits of shareware, > but benefits of free software and dealing with honest software > vendors. Its nice when you find a dealer who will accept returns, but this seems more the exception than the rule. And there's certainly no legal obligation for any return of faulty or poorly written software in most cases, much less good software that just doesn't meet my needs. > Ah, we get to the nub of the problem. Someone wants to make a few > bucks off of there program, but aren't willing to pay for a real > distribution. That exactly what I was looking for. "Real" distribution can be a mixed blessing. I could form a company, sell my program for $29.95 in the back of AmigaWorld and Amazing, etc. versus $10.00 for shareware. I've got to make up my advertising costs, contend with losses though piracy, purchase distribution media, etc. All of which I don't have the time for. Of I could try to interest a bigger software company, Aegis, EA, whatever, in my product, and that might work with some products. My shareware product was a program called DiskSalv, which does a pretty good job of recovering a trashed floppy disk. It a CLI based utility which presumes a knowledge of CLI and two floppy drives. And its the kind of thing that folks may need once in awhile, but not all that often (unless you've got a thing for pulling floppies with the red light on). This is not the kind of thing that I'd expect any large company to be interested in; you only need it once in awhile, its not flashy or graphic or anything. I originally wrote the program to recover a disk I had clobbered that was full of what, at the time, was really useful codes I had been writing. After that worked very well, I spent on the order of two months worth of spare time improving the program. The shareware scheme seemed the best distribution method available to me. > What you mean we, paleface? Of course, the software is yours, and you > can do with it as you like. Just don't expect me to pay for it if you > without providing evidence that you have real support. What exactly constitutes REAL SUPPORT? Say I form a company, DaveWare Ltd., and sell you my DiskSalv program at $29.95 from the back of a mag. You don't know anything more about DaveWare Ltd. than you do about me, possibly less if you've seen any PD programs I've put out. At least in my case, whether the program is sold directly by DaveWare Ltd. or though ShareWare channels by Dave Haynie, you're still going to be writing to the same address or calling the same phone number for information, complaints, etc. Certainly an Aegis or EA is going to have official support for their programs, where I (in either guise) could ignore any upgrade requests. But along the same lines, Aegis and EA aren't likely to give you the source code or respond with a version upgrade in a day or two. > You also loose all the cheap distribution channels you were talking > about earlier. What you're talking about doing is a publisher of cheap > software. That's been tried before. I don't think any of the people > who did it are still in business [anyone else remember JRT Pascal?]. > It may work this time, but I wouldn't bet on it. I remember Creative Computing Software; I wrote 4 programs (way back in '79) for them, my last commercial software venture. It didn't go all that bad for me until Dave Ahl took it over. My biggest mistake was writing for the wrong computer -- about 10% of the Exidy owners in the US bought my tapes, but at an installed base of around 5000 units, you can't make much that way. > <mike -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|caip|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh "The A2000 Guy" BIX : hazy "These are the days of miracle and wonder" -P. Simon
fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) (05/06/87)
When I first heard of shareware I thought it was a great idea. So I
was surprised to find I agree with a lot of Mike's points in his long
article.
There are people who write software for their own use or for the
fun of it and give it away. Those people don't need a monetary reward to
keep them writing.
A lot of shareware programs aren't worth paying for. It isn't
reasonable to write a little demo or utility in half a day and expect it to
make you rich. It isn't fair to use free networks to sell programs for as
much as they would cost in stores.
Despite that, I still think shareware is a good idea. If someone
writes commercial quality software and asks only what would be his share
from a publisher he is offering a real bargain. Shareware makes sense when
the user gets top quality programs and saves the costs of publishing,
distribution, advertising, support, and market risk. It doesn't make sense
as just another commercial distribution channel.
In the end it's a subjective issue. If you think the program is worth
paying for send a check. If not, don't.
--Fabbian Dufoe
350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33705
813-823-2350
UUCP: ...akgua!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
...akgua!codas!peora!ucf-cs!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
...akgua!codas!novavax!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
...gatech!uf-cgrl!ucf-cs!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
gatech--+--uf-cgrl--------------------+--ucf-cs--+--usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
| | |
+--akgua--+--codas--+--peora--+ |
| | |
| +--novavax-----------+
| |
+------------------------------+