pfr654@csc.anu.oz (06/15/90)
My two bits worth of the current piracy debate: I have read lots of the discussion about piracy of software, but what strikes me is that the software companies are raking in money. Picture this: ten years ago a department would use a minicomputer (like a Vax or DG or HP machine) and would buy A SINGLE WP program, A SINGLE GRAPHICS program, A SINGLE NUMBERCRUNCHING/DATABASE program. These items of software could be used by however many people in the group were logged on at any one time; mostly though the situation was that a few people were using the wp, a few using the database, a few using the graphics package etc NOT EVERYONE USING ALL OF THE SOFTWARE ALL THE TIME. Nor were all of the terminals in use; nor was the software all propietary. Now the situation is that the software companies say that a group of 20 computer users needs to get a copy of every program for each computer which might be used at any time. We know that mostly, of the computers switched on, about 1/2 would be doing wp [depending on your usage], 1/4 database/spreadsheet, 1/4 graphics. Further, we know that only about 2/3 of the computers will be doing anything at any one time during the work day (i.e. they might be switched on and in Word 4, but actually running a screensaver or something). What I am implying is that the 1 copy of each item of software per computer is not fair: a step back to the time of minicomputer usage of software, where the authors sold one package and one set of documentation, and more sets of documentation could be purchased if necessary - separate to more copies of the software. I realize that some companies have the sort of 'group licence' I am taliking about, but mostly even they are too expensive. Microsoft's version is in fact the wrong way around: ten copies of the original disks with two copies of the documentation [obviously they are agreeing that it is easier to copy magnetic media than paper], for about three or four times the normal price. Why not have all software being allowed to be copied for a fee, which does not give the payers of the fee the right to upgrade; say $10 for a program costing under $US 200, $20 over that PLUS a realistic price for extra copies of the documentation [i.e. what is the production cost for that documentation]. Just an idea: email or post replies: if I get lots of mail I will summarize. *====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===* Phil Ryan ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics Canberra, Australia pfr654@csc.anu.oz@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au phone:(61-6) 249 4678
mas@ulysses.att.com (Michael A. Schoen) (06/15/90)
Software is only too expensive if noone will buy it - this
^^^
obviously is not the case. So, if its too expensive for
you, then don't buy it.
Michael A. Schoen
AT&T Bell Laboratories <--- provided for identification only
mas@ulysses.att.compurcell@sciences.sdsu.edu (Guy B. Purcell) (06/16/90)
The following is a fairly explicit idea for software distribution, based on comments found here on the net, my experience with software publishers (both for my own needs, as well as those of a large university like SDSU), and some good ol' common sense about free enterprise. I believe it to be a serious alternative to todays methods, and welcome comments/criticisms. Having to buy multiple copies of the SOFTWARE really stinks: site licenses (as they're called, at least in the US) should be for unlimited copies, or at least for a tiny price ($5-$10) per copy (in which case a volume discount may apply). Manuals, on the other hand should be reasonably priced per copy desired, with perhaps a discount for volume purchases (in the case of, say, a university buying manuals for the entire campus -- that shows devotion to the product on the university's part for which they should be rewarded). Tech support should also be a separate item. An entity (whether individual, small group, or huge institution) should be able to purchase product support (sort of like software maintenance contracts for UNIX and other complex OS systems); the cost of which should be proportional (roughly -- again, maybe a volume discount is in order) to the number of users in the entity. Support should come with the right to free software upgrades (this will encourage support to be purchased). Any who wish should be able to purchase support at any time, and request/dload the latest version of the software (i.e. none of the "You didn't have support when the upgrade was made available, so you have to pay for it even if you buy support now." garbage. Hard to believe, but I've run into this before). Finally, support should be for a designated period (most likely one year) **from the time of purchase**. This last point will prevent publishers from having universal support start/end dates, directly after which they might have offered new revs and thus forced entities to purchase an "extra" period of support to get the new rev free. The implementation of this system would be fairly painless to all involved. The publishers would still only have to maintain one list of "registered users" (those with support). Users would still have to buy software, but the prices could be dramatically reduced (hopefully removing the need to pirate). Publishers could even offer multiple "packages," similar to MS's "academic versions": 1) software alone (cheap -- same price as an upgrade without support); 2) software and manuals (more expensive, but still reasonable); and 3) software, manuals and support (most expensive, but should be less than cost of #2 plus support separately -- again to encourage support purchase). Both manuals and support should also be available separately, of course. One final note to clarify upgrades. A *rough* manual should be included with an upgrade (perhaps just delineating the changes made) -- even those given to supported customers. Users can then purchase full (new) manuals as necessary. Again, perhaps those who *purchase* an upgrade *and* a new manual set can be given a discount. IMHO, this is a *workable* solution to the problem of high software costs. It would enable people to buy a variety of software without necessarily shelling out mega$$$, allowing them to make an *educated* choice about their favorite packages, thus encouraging good software. I realize charging for support encourages confusing software, but I believe that people will look for a better solution (i.e. another product) rather than get soaked for support because such experimentation will be fairly inexpensive. Products that are friendly flourish; those that are not die the twisted death they deserve. Guy (purcell@zeus.sdsu.edu)