fordjm@byuvax.bitnet (01/30/88)
I find this discussion of Shareware etc. interesting (if a little time- consuming :-)). I am currently in the final stages of development of a software package to teach telephone interviewing skills as part of my PhD. in Instructional Psychology and I would like to present my present rationale for using the Shareware distribution channel. I am interested in comments from the net. The package I am writing, "Interviewing Advisor" simulates the interaction between a novice telephone interviewer (the user) and a series of artificial respondents. The interviewer makes decisions about whether enough information has been provided and several AI "issue recognizers" track his or her choices for later feedback. It's a small project, but just the right size for the ideas I am trying to become familiar with. Now, here's my view on others' using it. I have a commitment to social science research. I feel that it can be important and beneficial (not that it *always* is, no flames, please) and would like this program to get around so that it can be used to train interviewers for research projects. On the other hand, marketing and political opinion research is *big business* (I have been employed in these fields) and I feel that if someone found my program useful in a *primarily*financially*motivated*enterprise* (e.g. a business) that it would be fair for me to share in the profit gained from my work. With this in mind, I presently intend to distribute my program through PD channels with the invitation for all to use it freely to research or personal skill development, but if it is used for training in a business setting I request that I be sent some sort of fee (which I haven't decided upon.). I do not intend to maintain this program after it is debugged and I do not (as yet, anyway) make any portion of my living writing software. So, what do you think of this reasoning? Comments invited. The issue for me, by the way, is not whether I can make a pile of money off of a program which has a very narrowly defined audience of users, but whether I can contribute to the research community without giving a freebie to people who care mostly about the big buck. (No, I wouldn't go to the trouble of trying to enforce this distinction legally, but I would want users to understand the intent.) So, ? John M. Ford (*Not* the SF author.) fordjm@byuvax.bitnet
rs4u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Siegel) (02/03/88)
This is a rather specific case, but since I find myself in a similar situation, I feel much the same way: I have previously released to various nets a shareware program called 'fzzplot', which was capable of drawing simple plots and performing sumple analysis functions (line of best fit, mean & std. deviation, so forth). It was a shareware program. I find that if people are not forced to pay for something, they won't. I've seen (and heard of) people using my program, and I know perfectly well that they haven't sent in the shareware fee. At this point it's worth noting that while I request some $ "if you like and use the program", I don't attach any moral significance to it. It's just that I pay for shareware, and expect others to do so as well. Anyway, the response to my shareware has been quite disappointing. Now, I'm preparing for release FzzPlot's successor. I may be biased, but independent and unbiased people have told me that I should skip the shareware and market it commercially. The thing is, this program is quite useful, especially to the subset of scientific users who have need of a good plotting program. I'm interested in producing "tools to make tools", and less interested in receiving monetary compensation for producing them. As you say: "The issue for me, by the way, is not whether I can make a pile of money off of a program which has a very narrowly defined audience of users, but whether I can contribute to the research community without giving a freebie to people who care mostly about the big buck." While my audience isn't as narrow, my intent is the same. I want to provide people with something useful, but if someone's too cheap to pay for it, they can go die. I generally enforce this by providing support for my shareware products; for example, may suggestions from purchasers of the old FzzPlot have been integrated into the new FzzPlot, and those same purchasers will receive free copies of the new program. Rather than saying "to hell with you if you don't pay", I say "look at what you get if you DO pay", even though my privately held opinion is what I state above: "if you're to cheap, then to hell with you." --Rich
dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) (02/04/88)
In article <6542@ccv.bbn.COM> kgregory@bbn.COM (Keith D. Gregory) writes: > [...] if you use any public-access communications system, you MUST have > ARC to be able to upload or download files. For this point alone, I > would refuse to pay a shareware fee for ARC. > > [blah blah blah] > > As a consultant, my machine is my income [...] > I use [...] ARC (only used for up and downloading), and a few other > utilities - all of which have been on my system for years. I'm sure that the developers of ARC will enjoy hearing that the years of commercial uploading and downloading use you've gotten from their product isn't worth a lousy $35! Dick P.S. I'm usually able to ignore most of the self-serving and arrogant "paying for Shareware is {immoral | for suckers | beneath me |...}" crap, but occasionally my gag reflex is triggered and I have to say something. (grumble . . . growl . . . snarl . . . snort . . . .) -- Dick Flanagan, W6OLD GEnie: FLANAGAN UUCP: ...!sun!plx!slvblc!dick Voice: +1 408 336 3481 USPO: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005 LORAN: N37 05.5 W122 05.2 --
kgregory@bbn.COM (Keith D. Gregory) (02/04/88)
In article <94fordjm@byuvax.bitnet> fordjm@byuvax.bitnet writes: >Now, here's my view on others' using it. I have a commitment to social >science research. I feel that it can be important and beneficial (not that >it *always* is, no flames, please) and would like this program to get around >so that it can be used to train interviewers for research projects. On the >other hand, marketing and political opinion research is *big business* (I >have been employed in these fields) and I feel that if someone found my >program useful in a *primarily*financially*motivated*enterprise* (e.g. a >business) that it would be fair for me to share in the profit gained from >my work. > >With this in mind, I presently intend to distribute my program through PD >channels with the invitation for all to use it freely to research or personal >skill development, but if it is used for training in a business setting >I request that I be sent some sort of fee (which I haven't decided upon.). >I do not intend to maintain this program after it is debugged and I do >not (as yet, anyway) make any portion of my living writing software. I think you have an excellent approach, and one that has been used by several entities with good effect. I think that the most common (in the MS-Dos world) is the Fido BBS system - it is free to anyone that wants to set up a public access BBS, yet costs $100 for companies which want to set up a corporate BBS. Which brings me to my feelings on shareware - which boil down to the fact that there are a lot of people that write programs, then decide to see if they can make some money from those programs. Let's face it - there are two types of programs. The first is the application - Lotus, PC-Write, and ProComm all fall into this category. The second is a utility - ARC, KERMIT, and perhaps 75% of the "shareware" programs fall into this category. The first category, I think, is very specifically written for mass marketing. Such programs may either be marketed commercially (like Lotus), or via Shareware (like PC-Write and ProComm). With these programs, you get features that the original designer probably didn't need, but included for the end-user. My opinion is that programs such as these should definately be paid for - that payment induces future development. Then there are the utilities. ARC is perhaps the most prevalent example here, but I consider it a bad example (more later). Utility programs are written by people for their own use, and released through public distribution channels. Which is fine - except that people tend to think "well, now that it's written, let's see if it will sell". Which is the wrong attitude to take, since you write the program to suit your needs, not the needs of the general public. And yet, one constantly sees "directory lister" programs, with a $25 "donation" requested. As I've said, ARC is a bad example. Why is that? First off, if you use any public-access communications system, you MUST have ARC to be able to upload or download files. For this point alone, I would refuse to pay a shareware fee for ARC. So, what do I do with shareware programs? For the most part, I don't use them. As a consultant, my machine is my income, and I am too worried about Trojan Horses to allow much shareware on it. I use Procomm (which I have paid for), Kermit, ARC (only used for up and downloading), and a few other utilities - all of which have been on my system for years (I also keep daily tape backups). At work, I have several programs which fit into the "utility" category, and no, I haven't paid for them. I have also produced several shareware programs. The latest (due for release whenever I get the time to finish testing) will examine all of your directories to find files that have been modified (it checks against a list containing filename, size, and date/time). Including all testing, this program took about a day to write, has a well-defined user interface, and a lot of bells and whistles that I may never use. But I wrote it primarily for my own use - I was worried about such virus's as the COMMAND.COM infection (which can be discovered using just such a program). Regardless of the amount of income I lost by spending time on this program isntead of other, paying work, I have absolutely no interest in making money from it. I will be released with source code, and for unlimited distribution (although I will retain copyright). Well, at this point, if you haven't pressed "n", you're probably wondering what the point is. I gues there isn't any point, just a personal view of what's right (and wrong) about shareware. For applications, I consider it to be the best method of marketing - and if I use a Sharewasre application, then I will pay for it. For many other programs, however, it is almost an indignity. I feel that the computer-using community (especially the home-computer-using community) grew because people were willing to freely exchange the results of their labor (I note that, of the PD programs I use, all were written pre-1985). Expecting money for programs that were written to fill your own need is just a bit silly. -kdg
jamesd@percival.UUCP (James Deibele) (02/06/88)
I find your reasoning about ARC very puzzling --- Thom Henderson of
System Enhancement Associates writes a utility that fits a niche so
perfectly that it quickly swept its predecessors (Library, Squeeze) aside,
and because it's now a standard, you refuse to pay for it. Do you refuse
to pay Microsoft for your copy of DOS? If you want to spend some time and
energy writing a program that does what ARC does, then contribute it to the
public domain, hurray for you. SEA made no effort to flatten the competition
(Vern Buerg, Phil Katz) when they wrote ARC-compatible programs; they also
sell the source for a reasonable price. They contributed something to the
public good (as well as all the FidoNet sysop utilities they've done as
shareware) and don't write long tirades attacking others. Not saying that
they're perfect, but they're pretty far up there on my personal rating scale.
It's possible to get software without using ARC --- any club or disk
library will be glad to sell you disks at $5 each. Or start your own BBS and
use Zoo instead of ARC. As a "shareware author," don't be surprised when
no money comes rolling in. Too many people rationalize like you do . . .
--
James S. Deibele jamesd@qiclab or jamesd@percival
TECHBooks: The Computer Book Specialists (800) TECH-BKS
3646 SE Division Portland, OR 97202 (503) 238-1005
TECHBooks One BBS (#1:105/4.0); 3/12/24 (503) 760-1473wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (02/08/88)
In article <6542@ccv.bbn.COM> kgregory@bbn.COM (Keith D. Gregory) writes: > [...] if you use any public-access communications system, you MUST have > ARC to be able to upload or download files. For this point alone, I > would refuse to pay a shareware fee for ARC. > > [blah blah blah] > > As a consultant, my machine is my income [...] > I use [...] ARC (only used for up and downloading), and a few other > utilities - all of which have been on my system for years. The point you seem to be making is that you pay only for programs which you don't really need; programs you MUST have are not worth paying for. That seems to be lacking in the little grey cells !? ... Are programmers and software publishers only allowed to charge for useless programs? If a program is useful, and therefore much in demand they should give it away? Come on already, you know better than that! Wolf Paul wnp@dcs.UUCP