eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (11/09/90)
Nice guys write lousy software. So? I think shareware is a great concept, but in practice it's failed. There are too many people without the integrity or the expertise to exploit it effectively--so much so that shareware has earned a bad name. It was a wonderful idea--be in business for yourself, be your own boss, set your own hours, reap the profits of your work. Low cost up front, low overhead, etc. What went wrong? What went wrong was that most shareware promoters saw it as a way to make a quick buck, with callous disregard for their market. The quality just isn't there. There are a few notable exceptions, but not many. It's the same reason I won't buy anything made in Taiwan. I've been burned too many times. So now I won't give the benefit of the doubt to shareware. And products like iwscript only serve to reinforce my growing belief that All Shareware Is Crap. And it's too bad, because there are people who don't have sponsorship, and don't want to slave away for a conventional employer, and perhaps can't afford to produce software "for free." But I also suspect that shareware authors are like stage actors: very few make enough to survive on their earnings. The people that "got rich quick" off shareware weren't authors--they're the ones who set up mass duplicating services and charge a couple bucks per disk--creating the very middleman that the shareware concept was ostensibly envisioned to sidestep. The best software in the world is either freeware or reasonably priced commercial work. The former is sort of an open secret-- popular magazines rarely mention the former, because they don't generate advertising revenue. I was just reading one with a special feature on virus checkers. Nowhere in there did they talk about what's probably the best program for the Macintosh-- Disinfectant. It's free software. So I've just turned out a better mousetrap at a more attractive price. That's capitalism too. I'll even tell you how it works. Would you buy a car whose hood you couldn't open? Even if you always plan on taking it to the dealer for maintenance, aren't you ever curious what's going on inside? I give you that. You can learn something. If you want to become a dependent consumer, that's fine. But if you can stand on my shoulders and reach even farther, I would be honored. I didn't get to do that with iwscript. I had to start from scratch, and work a lot harder than I "should have." If iwscript didn't exist, I still would have written iwf, and you'd all think it was neat and original. But I wouldn't have wasted my time with something that promised something it didn't deliver. Last December I came up with an idea for a really hot "interpersonal computing" tool. Something that would be seen as original. Something I was going to write and contribute to NeXT in the hope that it would go in /NextDeveloper/Apps. I got as far as prototyping it in IB in January, and didn't have the time or resources to finish on my own. Next week, Adamation is demonstrating a new program called Live Wire, independently developed, whose description is nearly identical to mine. Now mine will never be written. But you'll have the functionality, and no doubt better support than I could provide. That's the benefit of commercial software. Far from complaining, I'm now free to devote my efforts to other things. I want to see the NeXT succeed, and become the BEST workstation platform out there. Greed isn't going to accomplish that. Promoting a savvy developer base is. There are a lot of talented students out there that can't afford, what is it now, $1000? for NeXT's Developer Camp. I learned a lot from /NextDeveloper/Examples, from NextAnswers and TechSupportNotes, and from things other people have done. Now I'm paying back. If just one person benefits from my work, then I consider it a success. There are a lot of Mac bigots (and whatnot) who are so insecure that they will do anything to discredit Steve Jobs and NeXT Computer Inc. and the user community. Perhaps they should be scared. We have the potential. Let's make it happen. -=EPS=-
saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Kevin Saunders) (11/10/90)
In article <1009@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >I think shareware is a great concept, but in practice it's failed. > >What went wrong? What went >wrong was that most shareware promoters saw it as a way to make a >quick buck, with callous disregard for their market. Oh, ick. What went wrong with shareware is that 1) magazines are loath to provide publicize programs when they won't receive ad revenues from them and 2) the percentage of people honest enough to pay for the shareware they use is TINY. If users feel they're entitled to steal Excel and 1-2-3, they're gonna steal shareware without a second thought. I made $100 off dumb virtue, my shareware vt100/tek4010/text-editor on the Mac, all from *Europeans*. I never broadcast a truly debugged version (except to those who sent the $25) because I figured it out: if nobody sent in money for FEdit, a really useful, reliable Mac hex file editor, which got plenty of press, for sure nobody was gonna do it for my weird-UNIX-oriented terminal program, even if it *did* do a reasonable ANSI X3.64/vt100 emulation as fast as is possible when using QuickDraw (unlike, say, Red Ryder, vom-vom) and support uw and do wild things like support proportional fonts. Was/is dumb virtue reliable? Well, I used it as my primary Mac programming editor (dv did/does finds, text shifts, bracket matching, etc.) until I started using MPW... (a dog, but it handles files > 32K unlike dumb virtue's TextEdit based editor--oh, Apple sucks the long one! 6 years, and they *still* don't support text >32K! Anybody out there remember CoreEdit? Hahahahah....). Remind me--I gotta stop programming Macs. My resume's getting posted in misc.jobs.resumes. My brain hurts, kevin -- Kevin Eric Saunders cqu@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (11/10/90)
In article <1990Nov9.210806.11591@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Kevin Saunders) writes: > 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. I assume what I see is the BEST you can do. If you only want to give the "good" version to paying customers, put up a "limited functionality demo" in which everything provided works. -=EPS=-
langz@prodigal.Eng.Sun.COM (Lang Zerner) (11/10/90)
In article <1010@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >In article <1990Nov9.210806.11591@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> > saunders@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Kevin Saunders) writes: >> 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've never been "burned" by shareware and I think it does work (I'm a user, not a shareware publisher). I generally stick with publishers who adhere to the Association of Shareware Professionals standards. This means that the software is not functionally crippled in any way in the shareware version, and that it is sufficiently documented online for you to be able to adequately test it before deciding whether to buy it. Typically you get 21 to 30 days to decide. The way ASP member publishers make it worth your while to register the package is to provide printed manuals (sometimes) and free customer support. Usually registration includes free updates for up to a year. Shareware licenses are just like commercial licenses except that (1) they permit use of the product for 21 days (or wahtever) before purchase is required, and (2) they do not prohibit copying and distribution of the original shareware distribution. Judging by the length of time most of the shareware authors I patronize have been in business, shareware seems to work pretty well. I own two regular commercial packages I use regularly under DOS (Turbo C and the Major BBS), and the rest -- 1-2-3 compatible spreadsheet, communications software, virus scanner and TSR shield, file compression utilities, DOS shell (4DOS), and jillions of others -- is all shareware. I get good technical support when I need it, and of course the software isn't buggy -- I tested it all for a month before I bought it. This is why I can't understand your assertion that shareware is low quality software. In fact, most of it is quite good, and you can certainly find out from the online distribution community which packages are best suited to your application. I have no sympathy for someone who claims to have gotten "stuck with" or "burned by" a buggy shareware product. After a MONTH to test it out? If, after getting the golden opportunity to try before you buy that shareware provides, someone does not make good use of that opportunity and pays for the software without trying it, well, in my opinion they have about as much right to complain as someone who buys a traditionally-published product without reading advertising claims, marketing hype, and reviews (which is the best information you can get if it isn't shareware. Anyway, I've been up to long and this is well on its way to becoming a tirade, so I'll end now by repeating: most shareware products offer good value, good post-purchase support, and egalitarian licensing terms. I can understand why some authors won't choose to publish by this nethod, but I don't understand users who shun it. Be seeing you... --Lang -- langz@prodigal.sun.com 415/594-9268 "Why do you whistle so much?" "Well, it's hardly the sort of thing you can ask someone to do FOR you."