unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan13.153544.12059@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: >Now, I tell people, you wanna make a couple of bucks? Write a neato >program and distribute it as shareware. You wanna make a living? Get a >real job. This is going to probably cause a very big discussion, as it is something that many many people will be against. I think that a good way to get people to pay for shareware programs is to make them only work a few times.. I know that this technique is already used sometimes, but I think it should be used a lot more.. Instead of making a crippled demo, release the actual program, but after a person runs it a few times, it DELETES itself.. And to make people less spazzed about it being a "virus," include a file called "READ.ME.BEFORE.YOU.RUN.THE.PROGRAM" (yeah I know it's too big but you get the idea), telling people very explicitly that this program is going to delete itself. If they do not want a program that will, without their explicit command, modify their disks, they won't run the program.. This will sort of cause an unending spiral, like copy protection does, but the code to REMOVE the auto-deletion feature should be VERY well hidden so it's not simple to just go in with a sector editor and remove it yourself. This presents the problem of telling the user how to remove the auto-deletion procedure, but this can somehow be gotten around.. (Note, this is basically saying "I've not thought about it well enough to give an answer".. heh heh) If more people get GREAT, VERY USEFUL shareware programs like this that delete themselves, they may be more likely to pay for them! And it would be nice if the file takes a hell of a long time to download, so that people don't just download a new copy every week or two! -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ \WRITE TO ORIGIN ABOUT ULTIMA VI //e and IIGS! Mail me for addresses, & info. /
jonah@crl.ucsd.edu (Jonah Stich) (01/14/91)
In article <11014@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > >In article <1991Jan13.153544.12059@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: >>Now, I tell people, you wanna make a couple of bucks? Write a neato >>program and distribute it as shareware. You wanna make a living? Get a >>real job. > > This is going to probably cause a very big discussion, as it >is something that many many people will be against. Here's one! > I think that a good way to get people to pay for shareware programs >is to make them only work a few times.. I know that this technique is >already used sometimes, but I think it should be used a lot more.. > Instead of making a crippled demo, release the actual program, >but after a person runs it a few times, it DELETES itself.. > This will sort of cause an unending spiral, like copy protection does, >but the code to REMOVE the auto-deletion feature should be VERY well hidden >so it's not simple to just go in with a sector editor and remove it yourself. >This presents the problem of telling the user how to remove the auto-deletion >procedure, but this can somehow be gotten around.. (Note, this is basically >saying "I've not thought about it well enough to give an answer".. heh heh) > If more people get GREAT, VERY USEFUL shareware programs like this >that delete themselves, they may be more likely to pay for them! I think that this is a VERY bad idea, not only because it won't work like you want it to, but also because it's completely against the concept of Shareware. I would MUCH rather a person releases a demo of a program, with a note attached that says "If you like what you see, send $xx to xxx and I'll send you a version that saves/prints/whatever." The idea of Shareware is to a) MAKE USEFUL PROGRAMS and b) to pick up a little money on the side. Usually if b isn't happening for you, it's because you haven't done a. Most people don't like to admit it, particularly to themselves, but not everyone is a great programmer. I know from personal experience that not every program written is a great program, and that even programs that the programmer thinks are wonderful often aren't useful to lots of people. For instance, I wrote a program called the Shape Maker. It makes shape tables out of pictures. It's pretty slick, but would ONLY be of use to programmers writing games, ans most of them write their own tools for that kind of thing. Consequently I've only made $15 from that program. On the other hand, also wrote Twilight. Twilight does somethinig that a LOT of people want/need, and I'm not asking for a ton of money for it. Therefore, I've made almost $1000 from Twilight. I think that Shareware definately works, but people have to be realistic. If it was a program that took 5 minutes to write and will only appeal to 5 people, they're not going to get rich. Now, even if you want to have some form of protecting yourself from 'shareware piracy', the idea of a self deleting program is one of the worst ones. I download a program. I unpack it and see that it will delete itself after I've run it 5 times. So, I keep the archive around, on the same disk as the unpacked version, and every time it deletes itself, I just unpack it again. A tiiny hassle at worst, and I Mr. Shareware Pirate am saving myself from having to pay for it. Or, I fire up GSBug, load the program in, and in 30 mins have defeated the deletion features. Then I tell my friends how to do it, and it's as if the program weren't protected at all. Bascially, if you write Shareware, you should be doing it because you want to write programs that are useful to people. If you want to make lotza money, there are other ways to do that. Shareware protection is an oxymoron. > And it would be nice if the file takes a hell of a long time to >download, so that people don't just download a new copy every week or two! Right, people should write BIG programs, so people won't pirate them.... :) >unknown Jonah
jpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner) (01/14/91)
In article <11014@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > >In article <1991Jan13.153544.12059@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: >>Now, I tell people, you wanna make a couple of bucks? Write a neato >>program and distribute it as shareware. You wanna make a living? Get a >>real job. > > This is going to probably cause a very big discussion, as it >is something that many many people will be against. > > I think that a good way to get people to pay for shareware programs >is to make them only work a few times.. I know that this technique is >already used sometimes, but I think it should be used a lot more.. > > Instead of making a crippled demo, release the actual program, >but after a person runs it a few times, it DELETES itself.. > [lots of stuff about how to make a program delete itself and how this will increase shareware sales ] No, this will never work. You see, when I download something, I keep it in a Shrinkit archive EXACTLY the way it came. And I archive these things. Then if I trash a program, well off the archive disk it comes. Your method is very easy to circumvent, like all copy protection type schemes. And I'm not a pirate either. To make money at shareware, your program has to be useful. Asking $15 for a dumb program that people are only going to use a few times is ludicrous. No one will pay. Ask $5 or so. And tell people they will get a card or upgrade as SOON as they pay. Sending a card to people would impress them by your honesty with their money. Sending away a few bucks to nowhere is a loser idea in most people's minds, IMHO. Don't expect people to pay for buggy stuff either. Or ultra crippled. I congratulate any who sent $$$ to the Dreamgrafix guys but I'm too cynical of sheisters (sp) to pay for something that's not even developed yet. Well, that's my 2 cents... -- ------------- Jerry Penner alberta!bode!jpenne Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (01/15/91)
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but for me the big problem with paying for shareware is that it is damned inconvenient to do so. I can call up a mail order house and pay by plastic. I can walk into Egghead and pay by plastic. For shareware, I've got to go through a lot of work (writing a check, putting it into an envelope, stamping it, and mailing it). This may sound ridiculous, but it is inconvient to me. Share ware authors should get together and form a company to collect shareware fees (there are some of these outfits in the IBM world. I've had good luck with them). Many shareware authors fail to provide the promised support. I've yet to get a decent manual for 4DOS (for IBM PCs) even though I called them and gave them my credit card #. I for one, am not willing to go out of my way to pay for *your* product. This is a major problem with shareware. Make it more convenient to pay for it and I'll do so. Till then, I just won't use it. *** Randy Hyde
ccrovac@yogi (Paul Hirose) (01/17/91)
In article <11147@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >sound ridiculous, but it is inconvient to me. Share ware authors should get >together and form a company to collect shareware fees (there are some of these >outfits in the IBM world. I've had good luck with them). I know this really doesn't make it, but Zavtra would be a nice start...they already have pretty good Shareware stuff (although I don't have any of their SW) along with nice Demos and good -potential- program (Zlaunch) comes to mind. > >Many shareware authors fail to provide the promised support. I've yet to get >a decent manual for 4DOS (for IBM PCs) even though I called them and gave them >my credit card #. Hopefully, the Apple world will be nicer than the PC world > >This is a major problem with shareware. Make it more convenient to pay >for it and I'll do so. Till then, I just won't use it. For one Shareware program I got, I paid the guy off on GEnie, using the "Gift of Time" program (before they started their *Services). That wasn't too bad. Maybe something like this for CIS/AOL/GEnie could be started. Paul Hirose pthirose@ucdavis.edu |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Internet pthirose@ucdavis.edu : USnail Mail : "Violence is the | | BITNET pthirose@ucdavis : Paul Hirose : last refuge of | | UUCP ucdavis!pthirose : 230 A St, #18 : the incompetent" | | ucdavis!deneb!ez001793 : Davis, CA 95616: --ISAAC ASIMOV | | Alternate ccrovac@deneb.ucdavis.edu:--------------------------------------| | GENIE P.HIROSE1 : Disclaimer: I speak my own thoughts | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
llee@gnh-starport.cts.com (Larry Lee) (01/19/91)
Hi, Jonah. I'd like to compliment you for the first version of Twilight, though I was forced to delete it from my system because of various problems that it caused. For instance, no matter WHERE I put the mouse pointer on the screen (I believe you said bottom 5 pixels?), Twilight would always blank my screen. I have heard that you are working on a major upgrade on it. Is this true? I would like to add Twilight to my system, as I think it's a very interesting, useful, and fun CDEV. | ProLine.: llee@gnh-starport | Millions long for immortality who | | UUCP....: crash!gnh-starport!llee | don't know what to do on a rainy | | InterNet: llee@gnh-starport.cts.com | Sunday afternoon. | | AO .....: Watch this space! | -- Susan Ertz |
llee@gnh-starport.cts.com (Larry Lee) (01/20/91)
Good grief. You CAN'T be serious. How LONG does it take to WRITE a check, WRITE an envelope, PUT the check in the envelope, PUT a stamp on, and PUT it in the mail? And perhaps write a little note explaining the check? Are people THIS lazy today? Well, of course, you're talking about lack of support from IBM shareware. that figures. What can you expect from them anyways? However, on a less cynical note, perhaps some authors don't support their products because not enough people PAID for it in the first place. | ProLine.: llee@gnh-starport | Millions long for immortality who | | UUCP....: crash!gnh-starport!llee | don't know what to do on a rainy | | InterNet: llee@gnh-starport.cts.com | Sunday afternoon. | | AO .....: Watch this space! | -- Susan Ertz |
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (01/29/91)
In article <m0ixd27-00007bC@jartel.info.com> llee@gnh-starport.cts.com (Larry Lee) writes: >Good grief. You CAN'T be serious. > >How LONG does it take to WRITE a check, WRITE an envelope, PUT the check in the >envelope, PUT a stamp on, and PUT it in the mail? And perhaps write a little >note explaining the check? I'm curious as to how the original poster pays his plastic bills? I usually need to write a check and put it in an envelope and stamp it... Once a month even! Geez, shareware you need to do only once. I can't imagine anyone could be so lazy. -- Dave Whitney Computer Science MIT 1990 | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug dcw@lcs.mit.edu dcw@mit.edu | reports. I still need a job. Send me offers. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" --Binky (aka Matt Groening)