nraoaoc@nmt.edu (Daniel Briggs) (05/03/91)
After listening to all the "I hate crippleware" and "I hate reminders", I wonder if we might not be able to put our heads together, and come up with a scheme that would satisfy most people. It seems pretty clear to me that either one of the above approaches will alienate a substantial fraction of the author's buying public. I'm just free associating here, but could we come up with a hybrid approach that would work? I'm thinking of a scheme where the user can select which kind of annoyance they would like. I can see the thing being used as a crippleware editor with some sort of page limit, and no nag screens. When the user needs to edit something larger, he throws a software switch, and it magically becomes nagware. No limits, but the user is reminded that the copy is unregistered, and he really *should* do it. No one gets caught by the "I have to edit N+1 pages by Monday" syndrome, the user gets reminded occasionally that the product is unregistered, and he also isn't inundated by obnoxious nag screens. No, it's not perfect, but are there any gaping holes that I have missed? Can they be plugged? Would the people who have expressed extreme displeasure with one or the other of the mentioned schemes be satisfied with a product that behaved like this? -- This is a shared guest account, please send replies to dbriggs@nrao.edu (Internet) (505) 835-2974 Dan Briggs / NRAO / P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM / 87801 (U.S. Snail)
Jeff Boyd <BOYDJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (05/03/91)
I'm fond of the crippleware idea, but only one category thereof: the program has ALL functions fully enabled, so that the user can test and evaluate them. I become visibly angry when I test a "sample" program and find that I can't completely test it because not all features have been enabled !! The "crippled" aspect becomes size. Limit the size of the database, the size of file which can be edited, etc.. This is a common practice among commercial vendors of mathematical software (the samples are often called "education" versions, they have all features working, and are intended for distribution at educational institutions). You set the 'size' in such a way that the user doesn't get a tryout item which solves their problems, yet gets a clear idea of how the product works and its level of compatibility with their system. As for source code ... my superficial opinion is that you should probably give source (after registration, of course!) if you anticipate not being able to provide long-term post-sale technical support. But this is an ethics consideration.
galt@baby.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May3.133447.21207@nmt.edu>, nraoaoc@nmt.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes: > After listening to all the "I hate crippleware" and "I hate > reminders", I wonder if we might not be able to put our heads > together, and come up with a scheme that would satisfy most people. > It seems pretty clear to me that either one of the above approaches > will alienate a substantial fraction of the author's buying public. > > I'm just free associating here, but could we come up with a hybrid > approach that would work? I'm thinking of a scheme where the user can > select which kind of annoyance they would like. I can see the thing > being used as a crippleware editor with some sort of page limit, and > no nag screens. When the user needs to edit something larger, he > throws a software switch, and it magically becomes nagware. No > limits, but the user is reminded that the copy is unregistered, and he > really *should* do it. No one gets caught by the "I have to edit N+1 > pages by Monday" syndrome, the user gets reminded occasionally that > the product is unregistered, and he also isn't inundated by obnoxious > nag screens. No, it's not perfect, but are there any gaping holes > that I have missed? Can they be plugged? Would the people who have > expressed extreme displeasure with one or the other of the mentioned > schemes be satisfied with a product that behaved like this? How about have a counter of some sort that keeps track of how many times the program has been run... Then, have it be crippleware 3/4 of the time? Or have an annoying pause and reminder the first time and then every 10th time... Of course you could always get around this by making a copy, running it, doing a diff on the files and modify the counter with debug... Maybe use something that looks at the current date? Or it could be completely random... How about if you use the counter idea, but have it work perfectly for a certain amount of time, then it magically becomes crippleware. Another idea I have been kicking around is to release a fully functional version, but give people something extra if they register. Anyway, I'd like to hear any comments or other ideas... Greg
pac@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Michael Packer) (05/04/91)
From article <1991May3.161211.2382@dsd.es.com>, by galt@baby.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp): > > In article <1991May3.133447.21207@nmt.edu>, nraoaoc@nmt.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes: [... lots cut out about why some guy hates shareware ...] > Another idea I have been kicking around is to release a fully functional > version, but give people something extra if they register. this is the same thing...crippled means some functions do not work...your just rearranging the words... "xxxx is only available to registered users" "registers users get xxxxx" same thing :) -- -- These are my own opinions, why else would I say this -- Michael A. Packer ==> pac@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu DARPA Initiative in Concurrent Engineering (304 293-7226) The Back Door BBS: (304) 296 3649 (3-14400 HST/DS) FidoNet 1:277/15
cccstevn@underdog.ucdavis.edu (Steve Ansell) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.161211.2382@dsd.es.com> galt@baby.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes: > >How about have a counter of some sort that keeps track of how many times the >program has been run... Then, have it be crippleware 3/4 of the time? Or >have an annoying pause and reminder the first time and then every 10th time... >Of course you could always get around this by making a copy, running it, doing >a diff on the files and modify the counter with debug... Maybe use something >that looks at the current date? Or it could be completely random... How >about if you use the counter idea, but have it work perfectly for a certain >amount of time, then it magically becomes crippleware. >Another idea I have been kicking around is to release a fully functional >version, but give people something extra if they register. >Anyway, I'd like to hear any comments or other ideas... > Greg While your at it why not just make a fully functional program that is only useful for a limited amount of time? Many shareware programs already say that there is a time limit before which you "should" register, so why not just make this the limit during which the program is usable. Granted this will not stop the tricky debug hacker from patching the program to get rid of the time limit, but there are very few schemes that will stop a knowledgable "debug"er. As was said before, this discussion does not belong in c.b.i.p.d so I have redirected follow-ups to comp.misc. Please move further discussion to that, or another apropriate group. -- -Steven T. Ansell Unix Consultant Computing Services U.C.D.
scott@kong.gatech.edu (Scott Coulter) (05/04/91)
In article <1680@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> pac@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Michael Packer) writes: >> Another idea I have been kicking around is to release a fully functional >> version, but give people something extra if they register. > >this is the same thing...crippled means some functions do not work...your just >rearranging the words... "xxxx is only available to registered users" > "registers users get xxxxx" >same thing :) I think there is an implied difference of intention here. In other words, the features which are available to registered users should be special extras, not key features of the program. For instance, with a word processor, omitting the "Save File" function would be crippling it, whereas offering a built-in spell-checker to registered users would be an extra feature. Scott D. Coulter "Nose against the grindstone, scott@cc.gatech.edu it feels real good; watch out! Georgia Tech Software Research Center it's Dog Eat Dog..." Weird Al
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.133447.21207@nmt.edu> dbriggs@nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes: >After listening to all the "I hate crippleware" and "I hate >reminders", I wonder if we might not be able to put our heads >together, and come up with a scheme that would satisfy most people. I wish, but remember that in a crowd "Where there is a will - there is a won't". :-) :-) :-). This is a subject that tangents c.b.i.b.d in a certain sense. To redirect followups or not to redirect, that is the question. But perhaps we should gradually either close this down, or reconsider where we'll continue this discussion. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous ftp archives 128.214.12.37 School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
ras671@unhd.unh.edu (Robert A Seace) (05/05/91)
I say simply release a full-function version without a bunch of annoying "Register or die!" messages, and if people like the program and aren't pirates they'll register the thing. The crippled and annoying programs won't do anything to force those who aren't going to register anyway (i.e. pirates) to register, and might end up pissing-off someone who might have registered, so that now they won't register. If people are going to use a program without registering it, there is absolutely nothing that you can do to ensure that they register it, so why bother to go to the extra trouble of having two versions of your program: a crippled or annoying unregistered version and a fully-functional, non-annoying registered version? ||=========================================================================|| || Robert A. Seace || Sophomore at UNH || Email: ras671@unhd.unh.edu || ||=========================================================================|| "Who was that?" "Who--the man with the five heads and the elderberry bush full of kippers?" "Yes." "I don't know. Just someone." "Ah." - THGTTG Live long and prosper.
jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier) (05/05/91)
For what it is worth, as a shareware usere who has registeed 8 programs I am happy with, any restrictions on a program, especially reminders at crucial times, lead me to downgrade the desirability of the program. I won't say it rules it out entirely, but I have never taken such a program ahead of a shareware program that does not have htese features. I could go into my reasoning, but it might tendf towards the slanderous, so I won't. I have been uniformly happy with the programs I have obtained through tis filtre, and would be happy to recommend them to others via private mail. -- John Collier Email: Collier@HPS.unimelb.edu.au HPS -- University of Melbourne jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052 Fax: 61+3 344 7959
kds@physics (Kevin Stokes) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May4.195941.20614@unhd.unh.edu> ras671@unhd.unh.edu (Robert A Seace) writes: > > I say simply release a full-function version without a bunch of >annoying "Register or die!" messages, and if people like the program and >aren't pirates they'll register the thing. I disagree with the above statement, as a shareware author, I can say from experience, that few people will register unless there is a reason. How many people use PKZIP everyday, and of those, how many do you think have registered it? Most people like me have a very limited computer budget, and given the choice between throwing the money away on a product which I already have, and buying something I really want, it's hard to do the right thing. Putting fully functional shareware on the market with no disadvantage to the unregistered users is like putting $50 cash on every sidewalk corner with a note saying "You may borrow this $50 if you need it, but please return it with interest after a couple weeks." How many bills would be returned? One must be realistic. Most of the shareware which use and don't register is software which I would never buy in the store if at that cost. Who would go out and buy a keyboard buffer extender for $50, when Power C compiler with 600 page printed manual costs $20? My product notes the date when the user installs it, then allows full use without reminders for 1 week, and then asks for registration, or else the user must reinstall it. The fee is $5.00. I reply to the customer with a hexidecimal code which makes the program they already have work without interruption. It's hackable, but who wants to bother when the program itself is only $5.00? I've received over 250 registrations, but if the program had no protection, I'll bet I would've gotten no more than 10. And of course if I'd charged $50, I would've gotten zero. -- Kevin Stokes Duke University Dept. of Physics kds@phy.duke.edu Durham, N.C. 27706
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (05/08/91)
kds@physics (Kevin Stokes) writes: > I disagree with the above statement, as a shareware author, I can say >from experience, that few people will register unless there is a reason. >How many people use PKZIP everyday, and of those, how many do you think have >registered it? If you took the time to do a "pkzip -l", twit, you would see: <start quote> You are free to use, copy, and distribute PKZIP for noncommercial use IF: NO FEE IS CHARGED FOR USE, COPYING, OR DISTRIBUTION. IT IS NOT MODIFIED IN ANY WAY. <end quote> Guess what that means? That means I don't have to pay a DIME to use PKZIP or PKUNZIP! >with a note saying "You may borrow this $50 if you need it, but please >return it with interest after a couple weeks." How many bills would be >returned? One must be realistic. Most shareware is shit. Good shareware packages eventually become commercial. > Most of the shareware which use and don't register is software which >I would never buy in the store if at that cost. Who would go out and buy >a keyboard buffer extender for $50, when Power C compiler with 600 page >printed manual costs $20? Maybe if the author put a reasonable price on the package to begin with, he/she would get more registrations. > My product notes the date when the user installs it, then allows full >use without reminders for 1 week, and then asks for registration, or >else the user must reinstall it. And, if for some reason, the user only uses it once that week? MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / These Opinions Generally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / Represent The Opinions Of -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / My Company...
coy@ssc-vax (Stephen B Coy) (05/08/91)
In article <1680@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> pac@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Michael Packer) writes: >From article <1991May3.161211.2382@dsd.es.com>, by galt@baby.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp): >> In article <1991May3.133447.21207@nmt.edu>, nraoaoc@nmt.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes: >> Another idea I have been kicking around is to release a fully functional >> version, but give people something extra if they register. > > this is the same thing...crippled means some functions >do not work...your just rearranging the words... With my ray tracer I've been thinking about buying a 386 specific compiler to gain the extra 25% speedup available. In case you haven't noticed, 386 compilers are still a little on the expensive side. What I've been thinking about is releasing a verison compiled to run on any system and only sending out the 386 compiled version to those who register. This would help offset the costs of the new compiler. Would you still consider this "crippleware"? In fact, since the 386 version wouldn't run on an 8086 or a 80286 it would be the crippled version. Another thought. I've seen fully functional shareware where the "registration bonus" is a copy of the source code. What about this? > Michael A. Packer ==> pac@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu Stephen Coy coy@ssc-vax.UUCP BDIF
ressler@CS.Cornell.EDU (Gene Ressler) (05/08/91)
Shareware is junk rings like bigotry. Let's recall 4DOS and DeSmet C; the former is what MS should send with DOS. The latter is a very usable small model compiler/debugger/editor that folks shelled out $180 for until TC. Yes there's a lot of junk, but the best 10% is worth sorting it out. I have no qualm at all with a good shareware program doing something to ensure I pay. I've always thought a good way for interactive progs is to warn on entry, then have no way of quitting back to DOS in the non-registered version; you have to reboot. Otherwise, you have full capabilities and no persistent annoyances. Of course multitasking environments limit the effectiveness of this idea, unless non-registered versions overtly don't support them. It could be worse. I've run Unix packages on NFS setups where a special daemon had to be running before the package; it's purpose was to count the number of people using at any instant and refuse access if the number hit the license ceiling. Talk about annoying... Gene
sag@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May07.224227.7659@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: |> Most shareware is shit. Good shareware packages eventually become |> commercial. |> How profound! Could this possibly be because the shareware authors who are serious about providing high quality software eventually get tired of being ripped off? The best way to help avoid the situation you mention is to REGISTER YOUR SHAREWARE! -- Steve Gabrilowitz Martin Marietta, Orlando Fl. sag@iplmail.orl.mmc.com Fidonet 1:363/1701
stephenc@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Stephen Chung) (05/09/91)
Have been following this thread for a while. You see, all this is just economics. In econ, there is something called a 'free rider problem'. In other words, a person using shareware will think: "Mmmmm.... If I register, I am out of pocket 20 bucks. If I don't register, somebody else will, and the author will keep up with the upgrades anyway." I am not saying that nobody will register; just saying that those who don't and understandable also. - Stephen