witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow) (03/13/91)
In article <514@bria> uunet!bria!mike writes: >Providing a money back guarantee without restriction is equivalent to >hanging a sign on your front door stating ``No one is home; thieves >are welcome.'' If this were true companies like L.L. Bean and Land's End would not exist. Since they do very profitably exist, it follows that this statement is false. Now, before I get lots of posts saying the Shoes are not the same as Software, let me say that I agree. But I don't think that they differ in a way that is significant to discussion a money-back guarantee, unless is is the fact that most software is full of flaws, and that no shoe buyer would accept an equivalently flawed product. Actually, I think the analogy between Software and Shoes is apt; Another person wrote me something like ``a user could buy the (software), use it until it was (obsolete) and then demand a refund...'. If you replace the word (software) with (pair of shoes) and the word (obsolete) with the word (worn out) you have the exact situation L.L Bean faces. If they can be quite profitable under those circumstances, why can't MtXinu? -- --- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
wul@sco.COM (Wu Liu) (03/15/91)
/--witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow) said... | In article <514@bria> uunet!bria!mike writes: | | >Providing a money back guarantee without restriction is equivalent to | >hanging a sign on your front door stating ``No one is home; thieves | >are welcome.'' | | If this were true companies like L.L. Bean and Land's End would not | exist. Since they do very profitably exist, it follows that this | statement is false. | | Now, before I get lots of posts saying the Shoes are not the same as | Software, let me say that I agree. But I don't think that they differ | in a way that is significant to discussion a money-back guarantee, | unless is is the fact that most software is full of flaws, and that no | shoe buyer would accept an equivalently flawed product. | | Actually, I think the analogy between Software and Shoes is apt; | Another person wrote me something like ``a user could buy the | (software), use it until it was (obsolete) and then demand a | refund...'. If you replace the word (software) with (pair of shoes) | and the word (obsolete) with the word (worn out) you have the exact | situation L.L Bean faces. If they can be quite profitable under those | circumstances, why can't MtXinu? \-- Well, I do think there's one major difference between shoes and software when it comes to money-back guarantees. If you return a pair of shoes, they're no longer in your possession. More importantly, the store you bought them from can be reasonably certain that you can't keep wearing them after they've been returned. How can software vendors tell if a returned product isn't still in use by the returning party?
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (03/17/91)
As quoted from <1991Mar12.205916.2094@rwwa.COM> by witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow): +--------------- | Actually, I think the analogy between Software and Shoes is apt; | Another person wrote me something like ``a user could buy the | (software), use it until it was (obsolete) and then demand a | refund...'. If you replace the word (software) with (pair of shoes) | and the word (obsolete) with the word (worn out) you have the exact | situation L.L Bean faces. If they can be quite profitable under those | circumstances, why can't MtXinu? +--------------- Because very few people can make an exact copy of the shoes and then return the original, keeping the exact copy. Which is a trivial task with software. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR on 40m, 10m when time Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG permits; also 2m, 220, 440, 1200 America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/17/91)
wul@sco.COM (Wu Liu) writes: >Well, I do think there's one major difference between shoes and software >when it comes to money-back guarantees. If you return a pair of shoes, >they're no longer in your possession. More importantly, the store you >bought them from can be reasonably certain that you can't keep wearing >them after they've been returned. How can software vendors tell if a >returned product isn't still in use by the returning party? The more important question is, why should the vendor care? Which hits to the very crux of the problem. The vendor really has nothing to lose and a lot to gain by not worrying about this non-problem. Consider the very infrequent case of someone returning a package with the intent of getting it free. If he had not availed himself of the warranty, he would have likely gotten it elsewhere. If he simply did not find the program of sufficient value, he MIGHT, after using the so-called bootleg copy, recommend it to someone who he think COULD find value. I've done this in a couple of cases myself. That is, I've recommended software that I've become familiar with from bootleg copies. In this instance, the vendor gets a big net WIN. If, on the other hand, the vendor had hit him with one of these tough shit warranties and told him the same thing when he called in to support noting that the software did not work as advertised, the vendor would simply have another pissed off and potentially vocal opponent. Take me and EE Designer for example. Or for that matter, SCO. It's really better that the vendor spend his time and money writing better sotfware rather than sitting around scrouge-like counting the money he things he should have gotten. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow) (03/17/91)
In article <10801@scolex.sco.COM> wul@sco.COM (Wu Liu) writes: >Well, I do think there's one major difference between shoes and software >when it comes to money-back guarantees. If you return a pair of shoes, >they're no longer in your possession...How can software vendors tell if a >returned product isn't still in use by the returning party? There is, no real way (short of copy protection) to know. This would, of course, be stealing (or fraud). I don't doubt that there would be some number of people who would do this. Since this would be a criminal act (indeed, at $1000 it would be a felony in most states), and not just immoral, I doubt this would be a major problem. P.S., I mean major in the sense that it would be a smaller problem that that of people who are already copying the OS from their friends. You are talking about people who already shelled out the $ and not people who just carted over a box of floppies to their friend's computer. -- --- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow) (03/20/91)
In article <523@bria> you write: >...Since most copy-protection schemes are trivial and easily broken, they >represent a minor hurdle... Absolutely! I was not trying to suggest that copy-protection was useful it this case, I was trying to point out the futility of detecting this sort of thing. I think copy-protection is pretty well discredited by now. The major point to remember (in the context of the discussion) is that if a person is inclined to steal the program, the effort of: 1) Ordering the program, and sending a check or charging it (at $1000). 2) Waiting for it to arrive. 3) Copying all 50 floppies (or one tape on your $1500 tape drive). 4) Phoning for the RMA 5) Waiting for the RMA label to arrive, 6) Returning the package (and going to the post-office or UPS), 7) and Finally, waiting for the check, or the credit on the CC. is more effort than all but the most hardy thieves are willing to expend. If the *are* willing to do this, then there is precious little you can do to stop it. And because you are dealing with a dedicated thief, it becomes irrelevant to the issue of Unlimited, Satisfaction Guaranteed warranties. On the other hand, a good-faith buyer would love to have this option if it turns out that the OS doesn't work for him. -- --- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM