dsims@uceng.UC.EDU (david l sims) (09/26/90)
Results of the Shareware Poll I received over 100 responses to the shareware poll. Thank you for responding so quickly. Since the responses are now trickling in, and the thoughts in those responses have already been covered by earlier replies to the poll, I will share the results of the poll now. At first I thought of doing a statistical analysis of the answers, but it really wouldn't be too helpful. The poll did not reach a wide enough audience to extract meaningful statistical information. However, I have summarized what I feel are the prevailing attitudes. I have edited some responses, trying to highlight the points that stood out to me. I apologize if this summary isn't prepared very well -- I did my best in two hours' time. I rate my summarizing job as poor. However, if you want to know more about the poll, then please e-mail me specific questions. I've spent too much time on this thing already, and I have to get to class! Here they are. ***** It's too bad you limited Qs 6 & 7 to multiple choice. [Why or why didn't you register] Here are some additional comments: On the day that I first use one of the archive programs (zip, arc) to create an archive, I'll pay for it. I never wanted archive programs, but was forced to get them to unpack other shareware. The cost of the distribution mechanism should be borne by the seller. PKUNZIP should be free, PKZIP should cost $$ to use. I think the "self-extracting" archive is the perfect solution to this, because it doesn't require the buyer to use a program that wasn't part of the distribution. Most shareware is buggy. Procomm crapped out on me in the middle of downloads about 1/2 the time. I got fed up. No real support was offered. The creators would tinker to DEATH with the @#$%^&*= user interface, but not touch the important stuff (the download capabilities). As soon as a real alternative came along (QMODEM) I dumped Procomm, and was glad I'd never paid for it. But QMODEM had it's own problems, so I dumped it too, and got TELIX. Boy, did I find problems in TELIX. I called the telix BBS and offered to register if they'd first make a version that didn't have the numerous bugs in the vt100 emulation that I documented. They promised to fix it, but the fixed version never appeared on their BBS. I spent over $100 calling LD to Canada trying to get a bug-free version of TELIX (which costs only $40 to register). No luck. They told me "when you register, we'll send you a fixed version". Yeah, right. They vehemently denied that the bugs I documented existed until I explained to them at length how to reproduce them. Now I'm gonna trust them that they fixed it? I'm not gonna pay for shareware that's buggy. I'm not gonna pay for buggy shareware and then pay again for an "update" that may be no less buggy than the original. I've paid for buggy shareware that included source because I was able to support it myself. I got one game that was really good. The shareware notice was in a file I didn't read until I'd had the game for over a year. The game didn't announce that it was shareware. I do not get annoyed by initial banners that announce that I'm using shareware and should pay. That's only fair. ***** Question 1: Do you think the Shareware concept is a good idea? Answer 1: Yes, although all the SW programs I wrote never gained me a cent ! Question 2: If you wrote a program that you wanted to sell, would you use Shareware? Answer 2: I have tried it. In fact companies have called me up for an update which leads me to belive that they used my software without ever registering it. [Many, many people pleaded poverty. There are a lot of students on the net so it didn't surprise me.] Question 5: Have you registered the programs that you do use? Answer 5: No, but I am still a student and can hardly aford to buy food ! Question 6: If yes to question 5, why? Answer 6: (a) I want to be honest. (b) I wanted the extra features that registration can give. (c) I wanted to remove a lock on the software. (d) I wanted a printed manual. (e) I wanted an update to the program. I would register to make the concept work. (c) Why should I? Out of the goodness of my heart? Please list the letters (0 or more) of the response(s) that apply to you. ==> a b I would not be inclined to register cripple-ware. ***** [Would you use shareware to sell your programs?] Depends on the program, the target market, etc. I would only use shareware for relatively inexpensive things, not major software. Rather than shareware, I would be much more likely to give the program away, and ask for a voluntary contribution, and possibly sell manuals and/or update services. I don't [register programs] I've picked up off the net, since I consider that the author surrendered his proprietary license rights (as opposed to copyrights) by releasing it to the general public at the expense of said general public. [Very interesting. I apparently missed the net discussion of this topic.] As I said, I don't consider that I need to register shareware that I did not solicit that is delivered to me via the net, much as I don't have to pay for unsolicited goods that I receive through the US mail, even though I am entitled to keep them. I might actually have shareware under these conditions, and I might actually use it, but I neither know nor care. However, if I ask for something, I will abide by the terms under which I receive it. I'm in a bit of a quandry over what to do if I ask for a piece of software, and receive it only to find out that it is shareware. This hasn't happened yet for any software I actually use, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. It is tantamount to false advertizing. It is like someone saying, "Hey, would you like a TV?" handing you a box and saying "go on, it's yours, take it home". Then when you get home, you open the box and find a bill taped to the screen. Do you pay it? Do you return the TV? You received it in good faith and there were no conditions specified at the time of receipt. ***** Question 1: Do you think the Shareware concept is a good idea? I think it is useful but has a lot of problems. I don't really support the concept. Question 2: If you wrote a program that you wanted to sell, would you use Shareware? Answer 2: Probably not. Not if I wanted to "sell" it. To clarify a bit: I support freeware, PD and copylefted software. I find the ability to modify my software a major benefit of these kinds and a major defect of shareware (or begware or crippleware or other variants). Another problem with shareware is viruses. A binary-only distribution of these programs just further the spread. All of the software I write outside of that I am paid to write is available in source either implicitly or explicitly. I support GNU software. ***** >Question 1: Do you think the Shareware concept is a good idea? Answer 1: Yes. It doesn't harm anyone (in conterrary to some views expressed on the net a couple of weeks ago). The people who distribute it usually don't have other ways to sell it, or at least to get it to the hands of meny potential users. >Question 5: Have you registered the programs that you do use? Answer 5: To my regret, no. And the there is no approperiete answer in the options you suggest. The reason is mainly because I don't have money. But also because it is quite difficult to get foreign currency out of Israel. ***** Incidently, if/when I put out a shareware package, I would expect people to pay what they thought it was worth to them. If they could write it themselves (or something better), then it would not be worth as much as someone who couldn't write it. >Answer 2: Yes, I would. I totally agree with the shareware concept. I cannot afford to advertise on level to get proper exposure in the software community. For me, shareware is the only alternative. ***** I believe the concept [shareware] is essentially the same as placing the program in the public domain and asking for donations. ***** [Is shareware good?] Answer 1: For the customer, yes, because it allows them to test and experiment with the products prior to monetary sacrifices. For the developer, no, because hardly anybody pays. However, I prefer PD programs with source code, because in that case I have at least the possibility to fix bugs myself. ***** [Would you use shareware?] Yes, since it makes distribution of good software easier than marketing it through corporations. The hassle of trying to sell software to a company can inhibit some programmers. ***** 2. No (question wrongly phrased! If you "want" to sell a program you cannot at the same time want to distribute it as shareware! Otherwise, I might consider shareware distribution.) 7. (d) Because the costs and troubles of registration are to high! This is not one of the alternatives mentioned, but I had to invent my own alterna- tive since nothing fits. Let me explain: I might register more if not Swedish banks charges around 9 US dollars for their money transfer beaurocracy, and if I didn't have to wait in the bank for 30-60 minutes while they're shuffling paper. There are similar costs for credit cards, though few shareware publishers accept them. This is something shareware publisher seems to never think of. I wouldn't mind paying 10, 20, 30 dollars, even more, but I do mind having to pay 9 dollars just to pay 10-30 dollars! Including the wasted time on the bank the cost of registration becomes even higher. The reason I don't register has nothing to do with shareware - but with beaurocracy, which I hate. It seems that few shareware publishers are aware of this. People that register from overseas have to go through a lot just to register. Maybe a system of national representatives receiving money for shareware could be established? I can make payments within Sweden for minimal costs and with minimal troubles. ***** Shareware is a new form of _marketing_. It's not really about sharing anything in any recognised sense of the word. Shareware authors seem to say they will _share_ something with me, and then turn around and ask for payment. I prefer to call this stuff _snareware_. ***** Fit this into your poll if you want. Your questions imply a different concept of shareware than mine. Any shareware which requires registration to remove a lock is extortion-ware, and honesty has nothing to do with it. If I like a shareware program enough to use it, and use it often enough to get value from it, then I pay. I expect several things from this payment: a) The latest version. I do not assume that the version I found was the latest and greatest. b) A postcard or email when the next upgrade is ready. I may ignore it, buy it, or send in a new postcard for the next upgrade. I do not expect a manual, lock removal, extra features, etc. If the program is not fully usable without registering, it is not shareware. ***** I think you may be in trouble with this definition. There are several types of distribution that get lumped together as ``shareware'', and people feel diferently about them (I do), viz: 1. Pay if you use it, OR ELSE!!! (legal threats here) 2. Pay if you use it, please (no legal threats) 3. Pay if you choose to 4. Pay or not, but you don't get full docs or fancy features until you do 5. Pay if you want to eliminate some annoyance (``license me'' screen, say) 6. Pay if you want the fully-functional version (crippleware/demoware) The above come in various combinations, and I may have missed some. >Question 1: Do you think the Shareware concept is a good idea? >Answer 1: Yes, certain forms of the Shareware concept. I object to Shareware Type 1 because I consider shrinkwrap licenses to be legally meaningless and not binding. Although most shareware is ``licensed'' this way, I still will pay for a product that I think is worth it. If the author is obnoxious with legal threats I will probably dump it. Zcomm came very close to this, but it is such a superior program I payed for it anyway. An example of a program I rejected because of legal nonsense is Fansi Console: it's a good program, but I can use one of many substitutes that aren't as obnoxious (I use Powerkit II instead). If Fansi had been less expensive I might have registered it anyway. I won't even look at most crippleware (type 6). Type 5 is a perfectly reasonable thing I think, but there's a fine line that divides ``annoying enough to get me to register'' and ``so annoying I won't bother to evaluate it''. The other forms of shareware above I think are fine. I have registered the three shareware programs I use the most: Zcomm (comm program), Anarkey (command-line editor) and Powerkit II (ANSI.SYS replacement and more), mainly because I think the authors deserved it. I haven't registered some shareware programs which I usez occasionally but which don't *require* payment. I have thrown away programs that I would have used but I considered the shareware terms unreasonable or objectionable, or I considered the annoyance feature to be so annoying that I couldn't stand to use it often enough to evaluate it. ***** I only want to pay for what I use, I don't use the other programs frequently enough to warrant payment. Also If I did register everything, I would be broke, especially with some of them asking more than their equivalent commercial counterpart. ***** Note: The few that I use without registration are not paid for since I consider them mickey mouse types that the author is asking too much money for. Bring the price in line with the product and I have no objections to paying for what I use. ***** c (lock's on the software), or VERY annoying "register me" screens irritate the hell out of me. Having registered, non-shareware versions that have extra features and remove the standard "register me" stuff is fine, great; but lock's and real annoying "ads/warnings" are low class, used-car salesman tactics. A lot of the shareware that's out there IS overpriced, or so bad that it's not worth any price (I guess that makes it overpriced, too :-). As far as a lot of the other stuff goes, I'm a competent programmer, and I'd just as soon write my own tools so that I they do EXACTLY what I want EXACTLY the way I want, PLUS I have the source code then, so I can modify them in the future. It's pretty rare that a program comes along that work's the way I want and does something I want, that I haven't already written for myself. This is one reason why I don't use much shareware. ***** [why or why not register?] None of the above. The software was good enough to be worth a registration. Very little of shareware is. Incidentally, choices b-e are irrelevant, since I refuse to use crippleware. Crippleware is a perfect example of leech shareware. Choice a means nothing. My sense of honesty dictates that I delete almost all shareware coming across my system. I immediately delete all crippleware, all software with pseudo-legalistic "You must license this within n days" licenses, and all shareware of low quality and/or high registration fees. ************************************************* Some observations of the pollster: Next time I do a poll I'm going to put more thought into posing the questions and on how to summarize the information! Anyway...here the poll again with my comments. Question 1: Do you think the Shareware concept is a good idea? Most people thought it was a good idea. Most also realized that shareware doesn't work very well in practice. I think I could conservatively say that the average shareware program enjoys a registration rate of << 1%. Some people just don't like the idea either because they believe shareware is fatally flawed or because they support public domain, freeware, or copylefted (GNU) software. Many people complained that shareware contains a lot of junk. After all, shareware doesn't take a lot of effort to put together; hence, the quality of some programs in terms of how well the program works, the documentation, support, etc will be quite low. Question 2: If you wrote a program that you wanted to sell, would you use Shareware? "Only if it is a small utility-type program or something that has mass appeal." Otherwise, people realize that they will probably not make much, if any, money. Question 3: How many Shareware programs do you have? People have 0 to 4-5 to a dozen to dozens to hundreds. Question 4: How many Shareware programs do you use? People use from 0 to 4-5 or so. Question 5: Have you registered the programs that you do use? The registration rate, according to the poll, is quite low. Probably around 1%. Question 6: If yes to question 5, why? Answer 6: (a) I want to be honest. (b) I wanted the extra features that registration can give. (c) I wanted to remove a lock on the software. (d) I wanted a printed manual. (e) I wanted an update to the program. Most people who registered wanted "to be honest." Some said, "don't call me honest! I just want to support the author." (A rose by any other name...) Most people don't like software locks. About 1/4 wanted extra features and a printed manual. Almost EVERYONE wants updates and bug fixes. Question 7: If no to question 5, why not? Answer 7: (a) The software is overpriced but I still want it. (b) I haven't gotten around to it yet. (c) Why should I? Out of the goodness of my heart? Almost everyone answered (b). About 3/4 said (a). Just a few said (c). Interestingly, many of the people who answered (a) said they would have registered had the price been lower. About 1/4 posed legal or other carefully devised arguments to state why they intentionally did not register the program.
tcs@router.jhuapl.edu (09/27/90)
I wanted to throw something in for the guy overseas. I write software for loads of things that I do. I have even put some of them out for "Shareware" and "Crippleware" (everything but one or two features work). Of the registrations that I have received, one of them consisted of two boxes of diskettes. As someone who sends disks out, this was very acceptable. I always say, "Whatever you can afford ($15.00 appreciated)" and I ALWAYS send out the most current version (and the next version if possible). Carl Schelin tcs@router.jhuapl.edu
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (09/29/90)
One thing I noticed is that people don't seem to care for the legalistic version of shareware. You see terms like snareware and extortionware. The folks who *write* such stuff, however, look down the noses of us folks who just ask for a donation... that becomes beggerware. I think there is a certain cognitive dissonance here. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
everett@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Everett Kaser) (10/03/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes... >One thing I noticed is that people don't seem to care for the legalistic >version of shareware. You see terms like snareware and extortionware. The >folks who *write* such stuff, however, look down the noses of us folks >who just ask for a donation... that becomes beggerware. I think there is >a certain cognitive dissonance here. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' The problem here, Peter, is that many people will find a reason to justify their use of a program without paying for it, regardless of the means of distribution. 1) if it's commercial software they've pirated, they "would have bought my own copy if the price wasn't highway robbery!" 2) if it's freely distributed, but asks for donations, "It's BEGGARWARE!" 3) if it's freely distributed, but requires donations, "It's EXTORTIONWARE!" or "It's BUGGY! (but I limp along with it anyway, unregistered)" or "It's FREE! (because I didn't ask for it, it just showed up on my system!!)" 4) or, if there's locks on the software (to encourage registrations), "It's CRIPPLEWARE!!!" Basically, the people who use these arguments feel guilty that they're stealing someone else's work, and they RESENT feeling guilty, they feel that it's the author's fault that they feel guilty, and so they find defensive stances to hide their feelings of guilt from themselves. Hence, the "certain cognitive dissonance" of their arguments. Everett Kaser Hewlett-Packard Company ...hplabs!hp-pcd!everett work: (503) 750-3569 Corvallis, Oregon everett%hpcvra@hplabs.hp.com home: (503) 928-5259 Albany, Oregon
leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) (10/03/90)
In article <27380004@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM> everett@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Everett Kaser) writes: > >The problem here, Peter, is that many people will find a reason to justify >their use of a program without paying for it, regardless of the means of >distribution. > 1) if it's commercial software they've pirated, they "would have bought > my own copy if the price wasn't highway robbery!" I used to fall into that category ... primarily because (1) highway robbery, (2) I was a poor student, (3) I only occasionally used the SW, (4) it was freely available. Personally I find it hard to justify spending $400+ (list) for a piece of SW that I will use no more than once or twice a month. Now this total expenditure amount would increase dramatically if you consider the fact that one "needs" a spreadsheet, a wp a database, a comm program ... if those items cost $50 each ... well so what if I only used them occasionally. My first "real" purchase was PCOMM+ when it went from Shareware to commercial ... it did not meet my $50 criteria, but it was something I used often, so I decided it was the right thing to do. The same is true for other programs ... including Quattro PRO ... i got it @ $99 as a registered owner of Borland products ... better than 123 IMHO, again past the $50 criteria, but (now that I working) a reasonable purchase ... Bottom line, sure some people feel guilty ... I didn't. When It was appropriate (either right cost of frequency of use justified it) I went legit. Nowerdays I hardly ever touch my home system (original IBM PC) as I use enough PC's at work (a 386) with company supplied legitimate copies of all the software I need. I get PCed out at work ... plus it's kind of slow at home :-) leoh@hdw.csd.harris.com Leo Hinds (305)973-5229 Gfx ... gfx ... :-) whfg orpnhfr V "ebg"grq zl fvtangher svyr lbh guvax V nz n creireg ?!!!!!!? ... znlor arkg gvzr
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (10/05/90)
everett@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Everett Kaser) writes: > 1) if it's commercial software they've pirated, they "would have bought > my own copy if the price wasn't highway robbery!" > 2) if it's freely distributed, but asks for donations, "It's BEGGARWARE!" > 3) if it's freely distributed, but requires donations, "It's EXTORTIONWARE!" > or "It's BUGGY! (but I limp along with it anyway, unregistered)" > or "It's FREE! (because I didn't ask for it, it just showed up on my > system!!)" > 4) or, if there's locks on the software (to encourage registrations), > "It's CRIPPLEWARE!!!" I disagree that everyone tries to find an excuse for not registering shareware. I recently found my "perfect" piece of shareware. It is a package called the "Soft C Library", which is a library of functions written in 'C' to access dBase DBF files. Why is it the "perfect" shareware (to me)? Because: 1. This software comes with an extensive manual (250+ pages) that is not "edited", leaving crucial information out, promising enlightenment for "those who register"... 2. It is not "BeggarWare", as no "registration reminders" are displayed when you utilize the software... 3. It is not "ExtortionWare", as it is completely functional, no special functions or "unlocks" are "available for registered users only..." 4. It is reasonably priced, and includes SOURCE for all of the functions, at only $100... I believe that I will, more than likely (translate: unless I find something dramatically wrong with it in the next few weeks) register the software and pay the $100 for the source code. Now THIS is the type of software I like, and I support. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. -- -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 -- -- UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 -- -- XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST --
everett@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Everett Kaser) (10/08/90)
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >>everett@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Everett Kaser) writes: >> 1) if it's commercial software they've pirated, they "would have bought >> 2) if it's freely distributed, but asks for donations, "It's BEGGARWARE!" >> 3) if it's freely distributed, but requires donations, "It's EXTORTIONWARE!" >> 4) or, if there's locks on the software (to encourage registrations), >I disagree that everyone tries to find an excuse for not registering >shareware. >I recently found my "perfect" piece of shareware. It is a package called >Why is it the "perfect" shareware (to me)? Because: > 1. This software comes with an extensive manual (250+ pages) > 2. It is not "BeggarWare", as no "registration reminders" are > 3. It is not "ExtortionWare", as it is completely functional, > 4. It is reasonably priced, and includes SOURCE for all of the >I believe that I will, more than likely (translate: unless I find something >dramatically wrong with it in the next few weeks) register the software and >pay the $100 for the source code. >Now THIS is the type of software I like, and I support. >-- Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. -- I apologize, Michael (and others) if it sounded like I was accusing EVERYONE of finding excuses (I am a shareware author who has received a good number of registrations, so obviously I can't believe that). I was simply venting a little steam at the PREDOMINANT opinions that have been voiced HERE on the net on the several occassions that this subject has come up. I agree with all of your points (except perhaps #2, as long as the reminder is not obnoxious, some people won't even realize a package is shareware unless you put it right in front of there nose). AND, most shareware that's floating around IS overpriced (WAY overpriced; as example, witness the $30 pop-up clock, and the $20 batch file errorlevel programs just posted to c.b.i.p!). Also, if you weren't in business so that you could deduct the price of the package from your gross income, and if the source codes were distributed with the shareware package, would you REALLY be as inclined to register the package? I don't mean to impune your morality or honesty (as quite possibly YOU would be just as inclined), but these factors (in my experience) certainly DO affect a lot of people. I could go on with specific examples from my experiences, but I'll cut it short as I don't really expect to change many peoples attitudes about shareware, particulary on this net. Peoples attitudes towards shareware run much too deep, based largely upon their entire upbringing in our "modern" capitalist system, where the customer has to pay FIRST for any worthwhile product, and then fight like hell to get their money back if they're not satisfied. The reverse causes instinctive reactions in many (note: not all, many) people that result in scorn towards shareware and low registration rates. NOTE: MUCH SHAREWARE **DESERVES** SCORN AND LOW REGISTRATION RATES. But the attitudes of these people are not selective, but applied to ALL shareware as a group. Remember Sturgeon's Law: 90% of EVERYTHING is crap! I apologize for the length of this missive; it is NOT intended as a flame and I won't contribute much more towards this string, as it's been hashed, thrash- ed, and bashed to death and beyond before. Thank you for your bandwidth. Everett Kaser Hewlett-Packard Company ...hplabs!hp-pcd!everett work: (503) 750-3569 Corvallis, Oregon everett%hpcvra@hplabs.hp.com home: (503) 928-5259 Albany, Oregon