saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Kevin Saunders) (11/17/90)
In article <1010@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >responding to the article in which I wrote: >> I never broadcast a truly debugged >>version (except to those who sent the $25) > >You're not alone at this. If I pick up an early, buggy shareware >release, odds are I'm going to erase it soon after. I'm not going ^^^^^^^^ >to send you $25 because you might be "hoarding" a working copy. ^^^^^ Thanks a lot for the gratuitous insult; you're a real credit to the net. I wasn't hoarding squat; the bugs were pretty minor, not fatal, which is pretty good for fairly early Macintosh software. Plenty of commercial Mac software has nastier bugs. Next time EMAIL BEFORE YOU FLAME because you MAY BE MISTAKEN. The few who had sent me money DESERVED the debugged version; I didn't think anybody else did; I decided I'd better focus on work which pays, ugly though that may be. "Oh, the wicked author of shareware, what an *unscrupulous* character--trying to trick me into paying for this buggy software! Why, this character actually distributed it across the globe, free of protection schemes, free for me to examine, and judge for *myself* whether the software is functional. But I have found--my God, I must cross myself a few more times--this software has bugs! There are features that don't quite work right! What a *scoundrel*! I'll keep this, I'll use it, but I WON'T PAY!" Fundamentally, I agree with RMS on this issue: software is a free good (which doesn't mean it's not valuable--try breathing the air sometime!--but you'll have one hell of a time trying to *charge* people for it). To use microeconomic jargon, the marginal cost of the next copy of a piece of software approaches zero, since the very nature of the computer medium is to make duplication cheap. Software theft is pandemic, and will stay that way even if the government declares a War On Theft (clearly too unoriginal a concept for our government to consider). The way to make money from software is to provide little online help and make it more difficult to use than it needs to be--like, say, MicroSoft Word--so users have to buy a manual (from *you*)--or to get such a broad distribution through bundling it (the Osborne/NeXT approach, practiced on the original Mac but abandoned at the behest of MicroSludge, whoops, MicroSoft) that a million tiny royalty payments will add up to something substantial. As I said, it became *very* clear from net discussion of the profitability of shareware that almost *no* users would actually pay for it, debugged or not. That's why there are *no* major shareware packages. You yourself have apparently just confessed that you don't pay for *all* the shareware you keep, because the programmer "might" be hoarding a better version. As I said, shareware doesn't work as a concept because so many people feel entitled, one way or another, to use it without paying for it. *Including you,* if I read you post correctly. I won't post any more on this topic, which doesn't exactly belong in comp.sys.next. I hope EPS will restrain himself from flaming those who reveal an inordinate faith in human nature and distribute software in the form of shareware. EPS is a real altruist for distributing his swiftly completed software freely; he is mistaken in believing that this qualifies him to dump on others who are perhaps not as well-situated employment-wise and would like some bread to feed their family in return for their efforts. Human nature sucks. Let's start another war over our disagreements about what exactly is wrong with it! Sincerely, kevin -- Kevin Eric Saunders cqu@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu
rsw@cs.brown.EDU (Bob Weiner) (11/17/90)
This discussion has nothing in particular to do with NeXT computers but it originated here and from recent discussions clearly touches on issues of concern to people who read this group (the price, quality and availablity of useful software). > The way to make money from software is to provide little online help > and make it more difficult to use than it needs to be--like, say, > MicroSoft Word--so users have to buy a manual (from *you*)--or to get > such a broad distribution through bundling it (the Osborne/NeXT > approach, practiced on the original Mac but abandoned at the behest of > MicroSludge, whoops, MicroSoft) that a million tiny royalty > payments will add up to something substantial. > This is simply an immature view. While it is true that some commercial software houses worry about people copying their manuals (both by xeroxing and by electronic duplication), successful businesses do not depend on making products that are 'more difficult to use than they need to be.' (One might ask about IBM, but IBM has always known that its money comes from service not products per se, and so compatibility often takes precedence over usability.) Software today typically is too expensive for individuals due to high costs of development and marketing and investor expectations of large returns. This expense however does not deter individual desire to procure software. The result is that individuals violate license agreements by duplicating software and software companies market mainly to other companies where they have a chance of maintaining a useful margin. Two solutions are apparent. Drive the cost of development down (here's the NeXT tie-in) so that software can be made affordable for individuals. Realistically, the technology to remove the skilled human intensiveness from software development is over fifteen years away. The second is to segment the market the way the telephone operating companies do: one rate for businesses; a lower one for individuals. This is unlikely to be popular with software developers because the support needs are reversed from that of the telephone industry. Individuals using software are often less well trained than their corporate counterparts and also lack an in-house support staff to which to turn (individual telephone needs are today simplistic enough so as not to need an in-house support staff). In the PC market, the cost of support can quickly outstrip the price of a software package and so the problem remains. > As I said, it became *very* clear from net discussion of the > profitability of shareware that almost *no* users would actually pay > for it, debugged or not. That's why there are *no* major shareware > packages. You yourself have apparently just confessed > that you don't pay for *all* the shareware you keep, because the > programmer "might" be hoarding a better version. > Net news readers represent a very different market from that of the entire software consumer spectrum. Many of the most frequent contributers represent the poor student population, along with its frugal culture. Corporate people have a time constraint. Registering and generating funds for every useful little shareware product becomes an excessive burden, making many simply do without. The solution is either for the market to develop so that it makes sense for companies to hire software licensing agents (as they do librarians who deal with publishers in obtaining books) or for independent software developers to pool their resources and publish CD-ROMs worth of software that can be purchased in one shot. So there is no need to rave about software pirates or the sluggishness of corporations, all one must do is open one's eyes to the customers needs and the answers will appear. -- Bob Weiner rsw@cs.brown.edu
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (11/19/90)
In article <1990Nov16.162407.13925@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Kevin Saunders) writes: > As I said, shareware doesn't work as a concept because >so many people feel entitled, one way or another, to use it without >paying for it. > > *Including you,* if I read you post correctly. Apparently not. I delete garbage, and it doesn't take me anywhere near 21 days (or whatever the "magic" figure was) to decide what's garbage. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You're only making yourself look like a bigger fool than you are. (On second thought, strike that last sentence.) -=EPS=-