barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (02/03/91)
There's finally lots of diverse, cool software out for the NeXT, and more coming rapidly---that's great! (See the latest NeXTWorld, e.g.) The problem is, we can only afford to buy a few pieces---those most essential to our work, usually. But I'd still like to have all the non-essential stuff, just to play with, collect, and _just in case_ I ever need to design an airfoil :-) And I'd like to pay for it, because I want to reward the creators, as well as obey the law. Problem is, such stuff just isn't worth the _full_ price to me. What I'd like to see is some way for software ``dabblers'' (as opposed to heavy users) to get software at greatly reduced prices. The traditional way is to pirate the software, but that has plenty of drawbacks. Ideally, the price of software would be based on how much the buyer uses it. But such metering (a' la utility companies) would currently be too much of a headache to the vendors and regular users. So what we need is a system that approximates ``metered use'', but requires little additional effort on the part of vendors and heavy users (otherwsie they'll just ignore us). My suggestion: Build the pre-set meter into the software---put in a timer that prevents the app from launching after a certain number of hours used. For the full price you get infinite time on the meter, and there could be a few other standard settings (just like parking meters) that don't cost as much. For most apps in the NeXT universe, 20 hours would be plenty of time. On the otherhand, serious users would need an order of magnitude or two more. Reducing the price accordingly would put the price in the $20--$40 dollar range, which is about what I'm willing to pay for such things. Also, this fits with the current NeXT community standard of releasing crippled demo versions of software---except, instead of crippling the printing, or deactivating after some date, they could just release a fully functional version with five hours on the meter. I'm sure progressive companies would do this _if_ it were trivial---this is where NeXT could help out, taking advantage of their superior software platform. If NeXT created a ``meter object'' that did all the metering tasks, and could be added to a code from within the Interface Builder (just drag and drop a little parking meter icon), it would require no effort on the part of the vendors to add the metered feature. But, I'd like to hear other alternatives---this is just the first that came to mind. There are probably hidden flaws I haven't considered (and some I am aware of---a foolproof metering system may be impossible, unless the meter can be made to respond appropriately to copying and multitasking. But NeXT could perhaps put a few hooks in their OS to make it work). In any case, being at the forefront and just starting up, we NeXT users have a golden chance to alter the way software is sold. If we can think up something economical, practical and convenient, I bet we could bring it about. Ideas? -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
6600dadg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Mark Dadgar) (02/05/91)
In article <1037@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: >My suggestion: >Build the pre-set meter into the software---put >in a timer that prevents the app from launching after a certain >number of hours used. For the full price you get infinite time on the meter, >and there could be a few other standard settings (just like parking meters) >that don't cost as much. For most apps in the NeXT universe, 20 hours >would be plenty of time. On the otherhand, serious users would need >an order of magnitude or two more. Reducing the price accordingly >would put the price in the $20--$40 dollar range, which is about >what I'm willing to pay for such things. >Also, this fits with the current NeXT community standard of >releasing crippled demo versions of software---except, instead >of crippling the printing, or deactivating after some date, they >could just release a fully functional version with five hours on the meter. >But, I'd like to hear other >alternatives---this is just the first that came to mind. >There are probably hidden flaws I haven't considered (and some I am >aware of---a foolproof metering system may be impossible, unless the >meter can be made to respond appropriately to copying and multitasking. >But NeXT could perhaps put a few hooks in their OS to make it work). FLAW NUMBER 1: - It's 3:30am and you're using that crippled version of BartSimpsonCAD that you paid 30 bucks for. You're just about to save and print out that isometric diagram of Marge Simpson's hair-do that you need for your presentation at 9am. AND THE METER RUNS OUT. Go figure... +-------------------+---------------------------+------------------+ | Mark Dadgar | 6600dadg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu | Bill & Opus -'92 | +-------------------+---------------------------+------------------+ | From the dolequeue to the regiment a profession in a flash, | | But remember Monday signings when from door to door you dash. | | On the news a nation mourns you unknown soldier count the cost. | | For a second you'll be famous but labelled posthumous. | | Forgotten Sons. Forgotten Sons. | | - Marillion, 1983 | +----------Would UCSB write anything this intelligent?-------------+
zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) (02/05/91)
>>Build the pre-set meter into the software---put > >FLAW NUMBER 1: > - It's 3:30am and you're using that crippled version of > BartSimpsonCAD that you paid 30 bucks for. You're just > about to save and print out that isometric diagram of > Marge Simpson's hair-do that you need for your presentation > at 9am. AND THE METER RUNS OUT. Go figure... > I really don't consider that a flaw, I consider that to be stupidity on the part of the user. :-) I do like the idea, but as the above poster mentioned, there are some flaws to it. Flaw 1. Lets say the timer runs out. What is to prevent me from finding that 'dump' I did when the timer still had a lot of time left on it? And you can't tie it to the date on the system, ie the software fails after, oh lets say one month. (One might be surprised to know how many machines are running with their clocks set back.) I do like the idea of software testing though, and I hope that software people do make demo versions of their software. Supposedly, TopDraw is doing this. I also really appreciate what Diagram is going to be doing for students (of course the students have to convenience their bookstores to participate in such a program.) Actually, while plugging companies, I also like Procomm's pricing on X. While I would rather have it be under $100, the price of $150 seems fair. I just priced a program to display X on a PC, and it was in the $500 ballpark. (Send email if you know of a cheaper product!) The best policy though, is to deal with a good store (or friends) that will let you test software. (After borrowing a copy of Windows 3.0 from a friend, I thought it was worth the price of $70-$80.) Now before I get mail calling me a software pirate, or telling me that most people will abuse this practice, save your fingers. I know that some people would abuse this. However, I think that a majority of people might realize that is in their best interest not to abuse it. Andrew zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu PS. Every university should have at least one NeXT machine, just as a webster server!
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb5.084512.26648@Neon.Stanford.EDU> zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) writes: > >I really don't consider that [meter runs out at worst possible time] >a flaw, I consider that to be stupidity >on the part of the user. :-) >there are some flaws to it. > > Flaw 1. Lets say the timer runs out. What is to prevent me from >finding that 'dump' I did when the timer still had a lot of time left >on it? And you can't tie it to the date on the system, ie the software >fails after, oh lets say one month. As I said, some OS hooks might be required: Here's one quick scenario. The OS has a central ``time clock'' that provides metering services to metered Apps (i.e. those with a meter object inserted via the Interface Builder). When the meter object is dropped into an app, it can take with it a randomly generated ID#. At run time, it will ``punch-in'' with the central time clock with this ID #. The central clock keeps the apps onboard meter updated, and requires consistency between its records and the apps on board records, to avoid any machine switching tricks. The central clock could run across NetInfo nets, so that apps are properly metered across networks (instead of the luddite practice of tying apps to CPUs). The only ways around this sort of setup involve an evil superuser who carries around spare copies of the fresh app _and_ OS, and is willing to replace his OS to squeeze more use from his spent apps. Since this is a pretty small fraction of all users, I think the scheme could be of practical use. > > I do like the idea of software testing though, and I hope that >software people do make demo versions of their software. I agree---this is a crude approximation to the metering scheme (with two prices on the meter: full and free). But it is currently not done uniformly, and requires special programming on the part of each vendor. NeXT schould provide tools to add this to software with no effort, and in a consistent manner. >I also really appreciate what Diagram is >going to be doing for students (of course the students have to convenience >their bookstores to participate in such a program.) Yes---big problem here. For example, ay UCLA we won't get the low prices because the local authorities won't pay the site license fee. So you see, their approach to pricing---though progressive and well intentioned---doesn't work. Net result: very few, if any, copies of diagram will sell to UCLA people. (Though some pirated ones will show up, no doubt). > The best policy though, is to deal with a good store (or friends) that >will let you test software. (After borrowing a copy of Windows 3.0 from >a friend, I thought it was worth the price of $70-$80.) No, this doesn't solve the problem. For one, NeXT software will never be discounted as much as PC software, because the installed base will be an order of magnitude smaller for the foreseeable future. But more to the point: there is lots of software that I would use, _but not enough to justify the full price_. For example, the excellent kerning software TouchType. I could use it, but only a couple times per year, max. Its not critical for my work or play. So even though it is of the highest quality, I simply can't pay the _full_ price on economic grounds. So what should I do? Pirate it? Maybe, but how can I even find someone who has such an esoteric piece of software in the _personal possesion_? If I could pay $30 for a limited use version, I would. >zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb6.080837.26500@evax.arl.utexas.edu> herring@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Erick Herring) writes: > >Prologue: This thread mentions, in no particular order: Pencom >Software - referenced as Procomm (they _hate_ that! :-), Lighthouse Guilty! I would like to make a public apology to Pencom for calling them P******. :-) Gee, X for only $400.00! ($200 to Pencom, the other $200 for the manuals :-) Between NeXT and Pencom having such good prices, I'm going to go broke. I am still curious if Pencom's X will support Display Postscript. ie, some of the Dec Xwindow clients need a server that supports Display Postscript. (For all of you Xwindow game fans, a program called xmines will be available via anon ftp from calvin.stanford.edu starting Thursday.) Andrew zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb6.080837.26500@evax.arl.utexas.edu>, herring@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Erick Herring) writes: [...lots of stuff deleted...] > > Most of the companies writing software for the NeXT have no such > safety net, and rely on the integrity of NeXT users and administrators > to protect their (sometimes tenuous) hold on survival. Be steadfast > in protecting their interests, they are also your own. > This is precisely why I believe it is in NeXT's strongest possible interests to provide a means (if possible) by which software vendors may control the licensing of products by specific machine. I don't suppose there is any foolproof mechanism for doing this but if NeXT could pull it off, they'd not only have ease of developing applications going for them, they'd have protection against piracy and flexibility of pricing. That's most of a developer's dream (the rest of the dream being a huge, captive market:^) The difficulty of developing software is one of the major factors in software price inflation. NeXT has addressed that perhaps better than any other computer vendor (that I know of). But another one of the major factors (in some cases, more of a factor than cost of development) is software piracy. So far, NeXT has not addressed this. Neither have they addressed what is certainly another major factor which Barry Merriman identified at the start of this thread: the inability to fine tune pricing in accordance with usage. His metering proposal addressed this cleverly. None of this is a criticism of NeXT--merely suggestions for attracting those developers and applications we all want (hopefully, at pricing we can afford). [...more stuff deleted...] c.f.waltrip Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.
bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) (02/07/91)
In article <1991Feb6.112300.27353@Neon.Stanford.EDU> zimmer@calvin.stanford.edu (Andrew Zimmerman) writes: > I am still curious if Pencom's X will support Display Postscript. ie, > some of the Dec Xwindow clients need a server that supports Display > Postscript. Let me get this straight - you want to run a program that produces PostScript - and you want to send it to a program that intreprets X into PostScript, and also allows PostScript to be sent directly? Why don't you just port the darned thing into Display PostScript, and be done with it? The DPS extentions were put into the DEC X server as an acknowledgment that X is cruddy and insufficient - why not remove all the association with X entirely? -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bartholomew UUCP: ...gatech!uflorida!mathlab.math.ufl.edu!bb University of Florida Internet: bb@math.ufl.edu
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (02/08/91)
In article <BB.91Feb6201903@reef.cis.ufl.edu> bb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian Bartholomew) writes: >Why don't you just port the darned thing into Display PostScript, and >be done with it? Maybe he only has a binary. Not everyone has source to everything, you know... -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- Remember: this isn't reality. This is Usenet.
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (02/09/91)
In article <64143@brunix.UUCP>, rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: > In article <1991Feb5.104356.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes: >> >> So I second your metered approach and would like to see it in the >> context of a license manager built into the NeXT OS. > > If we are at it, I have to say NO to these approaches. I plan to sell > software for the NeXT eventually as well as many others, but not that way. > In general I'm opposed to copy-protection. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yup! me, too. That's why I proposed a license manager...you can copy all you want. It's not copy protection, it's unauthorized use protection. But, then, from the rest of your post, I infer that you are opposed to that as well, preferring to leave it to an honor system and market forces. There is a certain charm to that idea, but I still find that the notion that I probably have to pay a built-in cost-of-piracy cost when I buy software is less than charming. I'd rather contribute to a needy programmers' fund that would distribute free software purchased with contributions. (Perhaps we could conduct an annual Crusade of Piracy;^) Well, maybe not.) > If the program is worth > it's money people will pay any reasonable price. If you belong to the > category of people that ask 40000$ for some libraries that were > developed in just a couple of months (as it happens in this market) > then I'd say copyright laws should be abolished altogether. Such high > prices are an abuse of law that wants to ensure healthy profits but > not robbery. > An applaus to companies like Lighthouse and Pencom that realize that a > reasonable price will do it perfectly. Well, I applaud companies that price their products to sell, but that's a separate issue. One of the most ludicrous realities in this market is that the cheapest software is frequently the most pirated, possibly on the rationale that "it can't be worth much, so why should I bother to pay?" Or, "that's so easy, I could do it myself with a little effort, why should I pay for it?" But rather than argue the point, I would hope that we might see an experiment run. Suppose NeXT were to put in a license manager. We could then see who did better: those companies that chose to use the license manager or those who chose not to. c.f.waltrip Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.
drin@nro.cs.athabascau.ca (Adrian Smith) (02/21/91)
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: > There's finally lots of diverse, cool software out for the NeXT, > and more coming rapidly---that's great! (See the latest NeXTWorld, e.g.) > Gee, I'm *STILL* waiting for my first issue (the free one). I ordered in November, and it hasn't shown up yet. I got an invoice on Jan. 29, but nothing else... -drin