Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bgsuvax!dnebing From: dnebing@bgsuvax.UUCP (David Nebinger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: All Commercial Software Developers or Companies (pls read) Message-ID: <7655@bgsuvax.UUCP> Date: 24 Jun 91 17:37:55 GMT References: Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. Lines: 62 From article , by baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten): > If you want to "use" or "test" nearly anything else in the world, you > must pay for it first. I would like nothing more than to walk down > the road to my friendly Ford and GM dealers and ask that they each > give me a car for free for, say, 6 months, or at least until I decide > which one I prefer. Then I'll be happy to pay for that one, assuming > I still want a car after all. The dealerships do have a leasing program where you later have the option to buy the said vehicles. There is still a charge for it; but it is considerably lesser than having to buy the car. One can also rent the car one would like to test drive; you are not tied into the lease agreement. It is a lot cheaper to test the car you are considering. And even the dealers will let you kick the tires and go for a short test drive. This last option is free (except for their incessant sales pitch). Why can't this become an option when dealing with the purchase of expensive software? > Perhaps we should all sneak into movie theaters for free, and only > pay afterward when we know for sure whether the movie was in fact > worth seeing. After all, Hollywood is dominated by big studio and > distribution chains; if people had more choice in the matter and > didn't have to gamble with their $6, why things would be completely > different, wouldn't they? What sort of logic is this? What makes you > think that software -- unlike anything else -- is purchased by the > fact that it's sold by "somebody big"? But Hollywood goes above and beyond to push their new movies. You can always see the previews to coming attractions; not just still lifes of the characters, but actual footage from the film. Another way Hollywood makes more from a movie is to sell it on video cassette so you can go down to your local video store and rent the movie to watch at your leisure; then if you really like it and want to add it to your collection, you can go out and buy it knowing what you are going to get in advance. > Also, the "gambling" of which you speak is actually called, variously, > obeying the law, respecting the work of others, and not deluding > yourself into thinking that just because no one will likely catch you > doing it that what you're doing is right. More people than just the software vendors have to deal with copyright protection-examples are video tapes, record albums, etc. The copyright protection laws are simply hard to enforce. I think they are just, however. People do enjoy the ability to try something before buying it. It saves them from making an uneducated guess about the purchase they wish to make. The balance is, at this point, more towards the giants in the software industry-if it would shift towards the market buyers a little more, the software piracy would probably decrease. I think that a better marketing strategy of the distribution of demo versions of a software product would give the buyer a chance to "kick the tires" before the purchase so that they would not feel the need to pirate the software to do test it. Just my opinion, David Nebinger dnebing@opie.bgsu.edu