Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!coherent!dplatt From: dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Shareware and $$ (was Re: Public Domain Software programming) Message-ID: <52755@coherent.coherent.com> Date: 12 Apr 90 20:21:13 GMT References: <3094@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <49b9d37b.15840@valley.UUCP> Reply-To: dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) Distribution: usa Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA Lines: 145 In article <49b9d37b.15840@valley.UUCP> pfluegerm@valley.UUCP (Mike Pflueger) writes: > Second, from my experience, don't bother. It gets distributed quite widely, > and VERY few people pay. True. I doubt that there are more than a handful of people who have made a substantial amount of money from their shareware products... Scott Watson (Red Ryder), Don Brown / CE Software (DiskTop), Jeff Shulman (VirusDetective), and perhaps David Alverson (ZTerm) are among the few I can think of. Most people don't seem to feel an obligation to pay the author for shareware... especially if they've received the shareware via a channel which costs them money (e.g. a PD/shareware reseller, Compu$erve, etc). > These people then have the nerve to expect > support for the software. Nerve? Well, I dunno. If you're asking somebody to pay you for the right to use your software, then (in my humble opinion) it's not surprising at all if they expect you to provide support of some degree... e.g. the same degree of support that they would expect from a commercial software vendor selling a similar product for a similar price. If you're asking them to pay you money for the software "as is", with no assurance of support, I'd suggest making this clear in the documentation. It's probably significant that the few people who have made money from their shareware products seem to be those who DO provide some degree of support for their users. Jeff Shulman, for example, has done a really superb job of supporting people who have paid the registration fee for VirusDetective... his virus-alert and update-notice postcards are more professional than many similar things I've received from vendors of expensive commercial products. His artwork is better, too! > Worst of all, you get companies like Educorp who get copies and distribute > them FOR PROFIT without a) contacting you or asking permission in any manner, > b) giving you any share of the profits, or c) verifying that what they're > distributing is even functional. I saw several of my programs just pop up > one day in their catalog and went through a lot of hassle trying to either > be compensated or have them removed (one of the main things that bothered > me was they had never contacted me and were distributing an incomplete and > modified - non-functional - version of one of my programs and I got many > calls from people who wanted support and believed they'd paid for the > product). Yeah, Educorp has a bad reputation for doing just this. They seem to be getting a bit better lately... at least, I did receive a letter from them asking for permission to distribute one of my freeware products. The letter wasn't wonderful... it was a "sign here to give us permission, mail us your latest version, and we'll distribute it for you." They didn't explain who they are, or give much information about the conditions of the distribution. I turned 'em down, based on what I sensed of their attitude. I checked EduCorp's "show special" catalog at MacWorld yesterday. According to what I saw, their "antivirals" disk is horribly out of date... it seems to contain nothing capable of coping with WDEF, and listed Interferon as a "thumbs-up" (primo, recommended) utility. Interferon is obsolete; its author recommended quite some time ago that people stop using it and switch to Disinfectant or Virex. On the other hand, there are PD/shareware distributors who do a better job. I've been reasonably impressed by Somak Software... they seem to be committed to releasing only well-researched, functional software. They have fewer disks than EduCorp, but the disks seem to be a far better value. When they wrote to me for permission to distribute MandelZot, they explained their philosophy and terms quite clearly and politely. Somak's catalog has a very clear and prominent writeup on "This is shareware, and here's why you should pay the requested fee to the author if you use it." They seem to get the message across to people... I've received several shareware payments from people who got copies of MandelZot through Somak, even though I don't ask for any such payment! Somak called recently and asked for permission to distribute my Eradicat'em antiviral INIT. I gave permission, on the condition that the disk be distributed for a charge of no more than $4 (about half what they usually charge, and on a par with what non-profit user-groups usually charge for their PD/shareware library disks). Somak followed up with a phone call asking for my reasons; I explained that I felt that freeware antiviral utilities should be distributed "pro bono" (for the public good). On reflection, the folks at Somak agreed, and will be releasing a bargain-priced sampler/antiviral disk in their spring catalog. BMUG, also, politely phoned and asked for permission to distribute MandelZot on their PD-ROM. I have no hesitation in granting any such group permission to put my freeware/shareware in their libraries. If you don't want your shareware or freeware distributed by folks who are making money by doing so, you should include a valid copyright notice in the program and documentation, and a "Commercial distribution restricted, written authorization from the author is required" clause. > If you have a good enough product or fill a market niche, and want to > make money, by all means go commercial. Don't bother with shareware > if you want money, unless you make the program auto-disable or only > semi-functional. People just won't pay. In general, I agree. I'd suggest three categories, though: - Simple stuff which you don't care to support... freeware. - Good stuff which you're willing to support to some degree, but which you prefer to distribute via nontraditional channels... shareware. - Good stuff which you're willing to advertise and support... commercial. If you aren't willing to support it, and/or if it isn't something which people will find to be very useful in their day-to-day work, don't send it out as shareware... you'll be disappointed. > My estimate is that out of 100 people who use the program, you'll only > see money from about 1. If it's a really solid product, and if you provide an incentive for paying the shareware fee (i.e. support), I think you you can do significantly better than this. If you've written a simple little hack, aren't supporting it, and are simply "casting it upon the waters" in the hope of making money, then you may not even receive payment from 1 in 100. > I keep all my goodies to myself these days. I'm sorry to hear that, Mike. I hope that you'll rethink your expectations, and reconsider your decision. I've released a couple of goodies over the past few years. I've chosen to keep them as freeware rather than shareware... I'd rather have 100 people using them with clean consciences, than have 50 people use them guiltily ("I really _should_ send him the money"), 2 people use them and pay, and another 50 refuse to use them because they can't justify sending money for a nonessential. The good vibes I get from happy or grateful users are worth more to me than the few $$ I'd get by demanding a shareware payment. I have, however, created a commercial version of one of these products... with substantial value added. The freeware and commercial version will exist in parallel... it'll be interesting to see how the market treats this combination. -- Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805 UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@uunet.uu.net USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303