Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!vms.macc.wisc.edu From: pschwart@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Paul Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Feedback on Computer Crime - Apology Message-ID: <4200@dogie.macc.wisc.edu> Date: 14 Aug 90 22:40:07 GMT Sender: news@dogie.macc.wisc.edu Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center Lines: 74 (Barry Shein) writes... > > (meuer) >>I understand the point you are making, but I think it overlooks a >>critical issue: For those floppies to have something on them that a >>person would like to copy, someone has to spend thousands of dollars >>worth of time and effort writing programs. > >Yes, I covered this (and you deleted it.) > >It also costs big bucks to produce and market a music album, yet >assuming the media costs about the same (a few dollars at most) it's >interesting how much money they seem to make on only a few multiples >of the media cost (well under $20 for your typical CD, cassette, LP, >etc.) Sure, their volume is much higher. Does that mean that $500 for >a couple of floppies and a manual is a fair mark-up? > One difference is that a few record companies represent a ton of artists while most software companies have only a few programs. Much $$$s are spent on advertising, personel, office space, et al. that each company must provide. There are fixed costs to running any market/research business, and each participant has to pay. I am in no way advocating big companies like Microsoft (I like Borland's competing product in every catagory), but there has to be a better distribution advertising, etc. method. The second difference between the computer industry and the book/record industry is that most people only use/need a few programs, and almost always only need one in each major catagory, while a person may have 50 hard rock albums or 300 science fiction novels. > >>The only thing that can't be copied easily is after-sales services. >>The problem is, if that becomes the major source of income for >>software vendors, then it would be against their interest to write >>code that works so well it doesn't need much support. Will this >>create lower-quality software? > If we have high quality software that needs little support today then why does it take sooooo long to get to tech support? I work at a computer info center at UW Madison, and we are swamped with questions mainly because people don't really know how to use their computer, or don't want to take time to read the manuals. Cheap software with lots of after-sales options could help this situation some (spend money on the support needed). This way those that don't need the help don't have to pay for it. > >I carefully avoided putting any definition on "after-sales services". > >It might take many other forms besides mere "bug fixes". What about >discounts on education or other "self-help" books and materials to >bona-fide owners, help hotlines, newsletters, inexpensive upgrades to >new enhanced releases, discounts on other products from the same >manufacturer, I dunno, limited only by some marketeer's imagination. > > -Barry Shein > And I do think that more people would buy software if it were cheaper, say the cost of the disks plus two or three after market manuals. I think that software costs a lot because the manufacturers can get away with it. This also drives up the price of shareware (I've seen some programs that are more expensive than their comercial counterparts). The whole industry is floating in the clouds. - Z - +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | PauL M SchwartZ | | | PSCHWART@vms3.macc.wisc.edu | Your message here... | | PSCHWART@wiscmacc.BitNet | only 5$ per post | | (608)255-5702 | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+