Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!kim!hamachi From: hamachi@KIM (Gordon Hamachi) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Freeware Survey--Results Message-ID: <8511260519.AA23299@kim> Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 00:19:36 EST Article-I.D.: kim.8511260519.AA23299 Posted: Tue Nov 26 00:19:36 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Nov-85 06:17:39 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 536 Since so many seemed to have missed it, here again are the results of my poll on freeware ``purchases''. The results show that few people pay for freeware, and nobody responding is getting rich ``selling'' it. 1. How many freeware programs/files do you have? a. None ( 3) xxx b. Few (1-3) (10) xxxxxxxxxx c. Moderate (4-10) (18) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx d. Many (11+) (11) xxxxxxxxxxx Almost everyone has freeware. 2. What percentage of these have you paid for? a. 0 (22) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx b. 25% - 49% (11) xxxxxxxxxxx c. 50% - 74% ( 5) xxxxx d. 75% - 100% ( 4) xxxx Over half of all respondents do not pay for any freeware. 79% paid for less than half of their freeware. Here is a plot of answers for question 1 (horizontal) versus 2 (vertical) The more freeware a person has the less likely he is to pay for ANY of it. \1 2 \ a___b___c___d___ | | a |2 5 8 7 | b |1 2 5 3 | c |0 2 3 0 | d |0 1 2 1 | ------------------ 3. If you have not paid for freeware in your posession, why not? a. Poor software quality (6) xxxxxx b. Seldom use the program (34) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -not generally useful c. No incentive to pay-get (7) xxxxxxx nothing (else) in return d. Don't have enough money (2) xx e. Software priced too high (2) xx f. Software should be free (5) xxxxx /I never pay for anything g. Other (specify) The most common reason for not paying is that freeware programs are not frequently used or generally useful. Those who bother to pay believe it is fair to keep anything useful, but to only pay for heavily used programs. Even with heavily used freeware there is an attitude that only very complicated programs are "worthy" of payment. Specific comments: Low Quality: ============ I'll happily pay for a piece of freeware that is of the quality/complexity level of a pc-write. I haven't paid for BinHex because of a combination of laziness and the fact that I believe that is is small enough and straight- forward enough that it probably should have just gone into the public domain. Other competing software is really free (fonts, Kermit, etc.) or a real product (Sidekick) The fact that there are bugs in freeware programs does influence the payment decision, but there are diconcertingly often bugs in commercial software as well. If there are bugs, the author will be notified, and probably fix the error quite fast. There are a few programs that we are not planning to pay for yet, but if they prove useful in some way, they will be considered. Not Useful: =========== I don't use ANY of them, I just keep them on a disk, and pass them on to friends (like collect and trade). I do plan to pay for vmode the next time I use it (I've found I'm not using it very much). I only use *one* of the freeware programs myself, although I have distri- buted them to others who hopefully have paid for them if they used them. I do believe in paying for software products I use regularly, however. I never use them; they aren't worth the trouble of sending in the money I PAY FOR THE ONES I USE MORE THAN A COUPLE TIMES, BUT THE ONES I HAVEN'T USED MORE THAN ONCE OF TWICE, I HAVEN'T PAID FOR. Nothing To Gain: ================ When I paid for the Mock collection, all I got was a very silly "certificate" telling me what a nice guy I was. Gack. Even a catalog of other available programs would have been more useful to me (and may have generated more $$ for the author by other orders!). Trouble Paying: ===== I feel anything over $15 is a bit steep for something that's already getting free advertising, packaging and distribution (these three items usually account for 95% of a commercial program's cost). Most US companies that solicit overseas mail orders insist on payment by cheque drawn on a US bank (or credit card) - I believe this is because of the high cost of negotiating foreign cheques (Creative Computing described the situation a few years ago when they changed their policy on payment for overseas subscriptions). In Australia a bank draft costs $5 (but if I pay a foreign cheque into my account, the fee is only $1). So a US$10 donation becomes ~A$15 at the current exchange rate (the banks' "selling" rate, not the market rate), plus the A$5, total $20 (or rather more than 2 hours' worth of take-home pay for a fairly senior programmer - how does that compare with US salaries?). Anyway, the strength of the US dollar is not the issue: I just don't see why 25% of my donation should go to a bank! No, $ 5 or 10 is quite reasonable, and the authors do want to earn some money, so a less sum would be ridiculous. Compared to commercial software there is a price factor of around 100. Yes, software *should* be free, but until the whole world has the attitude of Richard Stallman (unfortunately, it never will) programs will cost money. If an author has put his time and effort in a program and sends it out to the world, it is only fair to repay him for his work (if the program is good). (There is ) difficulty in getting federal government to 'pre-pay' which is how it is treated if a typical order isn't processed Simple dumb laziness. I mean, I barely get my bills paid on time, and I never send in the registration cards for software I've bought in a store. I always plan to do it 'next month'. Many ask for no payment (shareware is the more commonly accepted term for that which does. It is sometimes not made convenient to pay: the address is not clear; uncertain who check should go to; no form to fill out (I am required to use my own stationery and to write a letter), etc. It's not that I intend not to pay; I sometimes fail to get around to paying if it is not made convenient. It's not in the spirit of the net. Even Trade: =========== As an author of a freeware product I view it as an "even trade" (not paying for any other freeware). I have a list of software that I have yet to pay for, ranked by how much I use it, how valuble it is to me. I pay for shareware out of the proceeds of my own shareware; as money comes in, I send it out again. 4. If you do pay for freeware, why? a. Developers deserve payment (15) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for good programs b. Encourage more freeware (9) xxxxxxxxx c. Promise of free updates or (6) xxxxxx documentation d. Reasonable prices (9) xxxxxxxxx e. It is the "right" thing to do (5) xxxxx Here again there is evidence that much freeware is regarded as low quality or useless stuff. Developers deserve payment for good programs, yet few users pay. Comments: =============== I agree with all of that in principle, except that I also believe that some things are simply too 'simple' or 'small' to really justify being shareware. My rule of thumb is if I find that I'm using the program on a weekly basis or more it's one that I need to pay for. The spirit of freeware should be kept alive, or everyone will lose on it.. 5. What advice do you have for developers contemplating distributing their software via freeware? Incentives ================== Give away the software as a promotion to sell accessories and support. Label the software clearly as a commercial product. Red Ryder is an example of what I mean. Offer a liberal upgrade policy and send copies all over the country. Give away useful things to paying customers. Distribute a beta release copy similar to Lon Abelbeck's beta versaterm. A demo copy free and a clear notice of how to obtain the release product might also be a good way of going, but this will take more of your time. One thing would be to make source available as part of the shareware registration, if requested (if, for example, I wanted to take BinHex and add PackIt functionality to it, I'd happily register BinHex if I could get the source to save me the trouble). Make sure it is properly debugged -- use the Beta site concept, fergoshsake. And document it intelligently. I think a very, very overlooked use of freeware is -advertising-. The "Megaroids" game was a wonderful ad for the C compiler used to write it; and if you sent in the amount requested, you got back something geniunely useful (the sources). Why not offer to send a copy of the source code to those who pay. I'd have paid for several desk accessories I don't use, just to see the code. The main reason to buy something at full price is for the manual. So the key to freeware is to promise a nice manual when they register their copy. Offer something additional for paying such as updates. Offering a restricted version for free and complete version for pay is okay, but once people associate the program name with freeware they'll copy the complete version defeating you. Updates, an answer line, etc. are best because they are time dependent and thus less vulnerable to piracy. Write GOOD documentation. Concise, clear, short, and visually attractive. NO spelling errors, etc. which undermine the user's trust that you are a professional whose software can be trusted to do what it purports to do and doesn't mess anything else up. I like the method used to distribute FastEddie -- send in $33 and get a full function (the free sample version only handles 11K files) version with a serial number. You can distribute the limited version, which includes your serial number, freely. If someone sends for the full version, they include your serial number and you then receive $11. Methods for making sure the user sends money: promise source code, future updates to nominal cost, extensive documentation, etc. Respond to comments from users, and make sure they know that you care about their views on the program. I think that developers should charge for their work up front. I have a problem with an honor system like this one. There is no commitment from the developer to maintain or support the program that is freely distributed. Why would anyone give away that much work for (possibly) nothing? I prefer to pay for what I want, and complain if it doesn't seem worth it. My own stuff encourages payment by offering the user something of demonstrable value in exchange for her money. - A printed reference card, the removal of annoying restrictions, or how to get access to commands that are only described in the free version. Now if someone wants to take his early prototype and make it #1, and then include a note "If you want a version that does X, Y and Z, please send a check to 123 Main St., Nowhere, Ohio" . But remember, a real commercial software means: Usable Documentation Support (how do you....? Bug fixes. etc.) TESTING TESTING and more TESTING Documentation is the key point to any product. Like any other product, if you have something that people want and can actually use, they will, I believe, tend to pay for it. This is my plan, as implemented by the fellow who wrote MenuClock. Distribute, through freeware channels, your program with features disabled and an ad for the password. This, in conjunction with a decent program and a cheap price should do the trick. Another option is to distribute a scaled down version of your program (no password, no code) and promise the full one with payment. Any other attempts at freeware, I feel, are doomed. People are shits, with the exception of a lot of nice people, but they are out numbered. There must be an incentive to pay, and documentation is not it! If you cannot use the program intuitively, then there is no point in buying it. The program must be incomplete (i.e. readonly, no obviously cool features) or people will just forget about it. My commendations to David Oster, creator of the Menu Clock. It is a marvelous piece of software that embodies all these principals. I suspect that he padded his freeware to make it obnoxiously big so you would be inclined to buy, but he only charged $5. Ask him how much he has made. All I got for my $5 was a card with instructions on how to type in the password. It worked marvelous. I am pleased. As with all things, this plan is not foolproof. The password or complete program can still be passed around (I would hope it had no copy protection after all this) but it would get a lot of honest people's money. When you promise documentation, updates, etc. be sure to deliver. Profit Potential ================ Check with other freeware developers before distribution in order to evaluate your possible return. If the program is well writen of of proven value, I think you have a very good chance of making money. I know that I pay for programs that fall in this catagory. Also, it is important to let people know how important paying for the program for is to you, like Scott Watson (Red Ryder) has. Say you could sell 1000 copies by a commercial route. your royalty is only $2 a copy. Now, those same 1000 could be freeware. maybe only one person in 10 is going to send you any money, but you get all the money; there aren't 3 middlemen to take their cut. so, maybe $20 a copy. Also, its less hassle than signing all those contracts and bringing in twelve lawyers and all that bullshit and wasted energy. Also, even if you do go commercial, just about anything is copiable by copy 2 mac, so you may still only see money from 1/10 of the copies that are out there. I wonder if the honesty ratio differs much between freeware and commercial-ware. If what you did was a part time hack that you did for fun or to teach yourself about hacking, I'd say go for it. Put a very low (or "what you think it's worth") price tag on it. Anything you get back is gravy. But if the project was enough of an effort that you need a serious reward, you'd better think about seriously selling it. Don't expect to get rich. Don't expect to get rich and don't expect too many people to be honest. If feeling good about writing good programs and happy about those who have gone to the effort to pay isn't satifying enough, don't do it. And one last thing, people who complain of lost revenue to software pirates are fooling themselves. Those people would not buy it if anyway. They only use it because they have it. If they didn't have it, they wouldn't buy it. People who will buy, do. People who won't, either do without or copy it. If they can't copy it, they do without. No revenue lost because no sale was lost. The days of fabulous wealth in mere days are over. The field is flooded with programmers writing the same programs. I must have seen 10 implementaions of Missle Command for the Mac, and it was old before the Mac was born! Price and Quality ================= Remember that whether people are willing to buy (or pay) for a product is very sensitive to the price of the product. I learned this myself experimentally with my main software product (a disk driver), where a $10 difference had an enormous effect on how many people were willing to buy it. Set reasonable prices. I will certainly pay something <= $20, likelihood goes down as price goes up. Provide some method of eliminating annoying startup messages when fee is paid. (MenuClock, recently distributed, is a good example of this.) Don't ask for money unless the program is worth it. I've seen a lot of junk posted as "shareware" that used to be given away. Don't get greedy. I haven't seen a shareware program that I'd pay more than $10 for. A program that costs $30-$40 in a store is probably worth $5-$10 as shareware. If you think the program is really worth more than that, you'd probably do better to sell it in stores. My first bit of advice is a pet peeve with me. I can't believe the trash that people expect me to pay money for! Before the advent of shareware, people would freely share their discoveries -- now they want $10 each for them. They're no better than the "greedy corporations" that everybody complains about! Don't charge money for something that's not worth money. I've seen freeware DA's that can't be installed in some Systems without crashing. I've seen freeware games that are not worth playing. I've seen freeware utilities that are only minor improvements over ones that are available free. I don't use them and I don't intend to pay for them. Keep the price moderate. Although I haven't found a use for anything yet, if the price mentioned is over a person's estimation of the value, he is likely to send nothing rather than a lower amount. Don't expect much income unless you write a *really* good program Basically, freeware has taken the place of public-domain software. Once upon a time (say, last year) people who wrote PD software gave it away. Then some people hit upon the 'freeware' concept, and all those PD developers said "Hey, just by sticking in a little message I might get a few bucks for my effort." The problem is that most of today's freeware should really be PD because it's so buggy or marginally useful. (One man's flame. I should talk, I've never given any software away...) I think too many people stick in that "send me $10 if you feel like it" message, just for the chance of getting money. I think if it's worth money, it's worth selling commercially; if not, it should be posted free with sources. The most useful programs I have are free (uw, ResEdit, etc.). People are willing to pay for and what people need to use. There is a median that will be bounded programs of varying caliber and prices. It is also a matter of practicality. If I were to pay all the money asked for all the software I possess and sometimes use, I would have spent over $3,000 just on the programs. That's more than I paid for the hardware! I think the question of morals needs to be addressed here, because I do not believe I am ripping people off. For example, I have a copy of PageMaker with the protection busted. I use this program to write letters to my relatives about what's going on in my life. I do nothing with it that would make it worth $500. If I were printing leaflets for a living, then I would be stealing. I am making no money off any programs I have, so I feel little need to pay outrageous fees. An obvious exception to this is games. They are not meant to provide a service, merely to waste time. Many of these are not worth the $50 asked. I would never buy one. I paid $30 for Sargon III because I realize that that took some real work (probably already paid for with earlier versions) and was only $30. I cannot condone these prices for entertainment. Text adventures are a prime example. Is it worth $30 to play a game all the way through, once!?! Granted it takes a week to make it through (or three days if you are smarter and have time), but it is still too much for me. I will not buy them and I will not play them. In order to get my money, a game must make me want to play it over and over again. If computers are meant to remove humans from tedious work, why must I learn to be a robot so I can make it through 150 levels of Lode Runner? Gripes ======= The important thing is to try to eliminate these obnoxious copy protection schemes (which only the people who pay for them have to put up with) and lower everyone's expectaions. Freeware attempts to be unsupported software getting others to pay the distribution costs. Fonts are a notable exception. They require no support or testing. Therefore, either sell the font, or give it away--don't try to con others into being your distribution channel. The most annoying freeware program I ever saw was a keyboard-remapping program that was otherwise quite nice. It would remap ONE key, then exit with a dialog box that said "Please send me $35" and a button that said "OK, I will" that you had to press before you could get back to the Finder. I deleted this program immediately. This is an extreme example of the case of freeware being less useful because it's so busy bugging you for money that it can't do the job. DON'T use worms that stop the free version from running after some date or number of executions. This just annoys people causing them to discard the program out of hand, to decide not to pay someone who does things hostile to the people he's supposedly trying to make friends with, or to feel compelled to 'break' the worm. Practical Advice ================ I believe it will be worth it in the long run. This is the way that software should be written and devloped. I don't like big companies who charge an arm and a leg for their products. Freeware (or shareware) always has reasonable prices and YOU GET TO TRY IT FIRST!!! Post better explanations of what the program does. Use PackIt Make your software as generally useful (wide scope) as possible. The more functions in a program, the more likely it is to become indispensable in day-to-day operation; for me, that indispensability is the point at which I generally say "I've gotta pay for this"). Make it convenient to pay: give me a form for a blank page, where I can put my name, who the check should be made out to, and where to send it. Keep in touch with previous "customers", as not all will have net access in the future. This way, any good piece of software that IS developed will be able to reach a larger group of users. Cash checks promptly. Make it easy to pay. Double check that the address is correct. Give a phone number if at all possible even if its connected to a phone answering business. The next three questions are for freeware developers 6. What freeware products do you distribute? There weren't many replies to this. 7. What kind of response have you received? a. Poor-no money xx b. Disappointing x c. Moderate-I'm not getting rich but it paid for my Macintosh d. Great-Tomorrow I buy my Ferrari One repondant notes that his freeware paid for his IBM PC upgrades. Another believes that since software should be free, everyone wins. 8. Will you distribute freeware in the future? a. No, never again. I'm giving up on software development b. No, next time I'll go through regular x commercial channels c. Maybe-The results still aren't in xxx d. Yes. Definitely xxx Sending things out via "regular channels" gives you much better control over the quality of the distribution (e.g. printed documentation, which was quite important to the above mentioned project). If I were not working full time (and under various restrictions about what I can produce) I probably would distribute some of my current products as freeware. The former method (mail order blanks to people who had heard of the program and wanted a copy is a lot of trouble, and the return on the programs in proportion to the number of descriptive blanks mailed out is relatively low; many people apparently want it for free. The time required to mail out descriptions answering individual questions, and providing various forms of support to purchasers, is very high anyway; I guess the latter wouldn't go down any with the freeware approach, but the former would since they would have it and could see it for themselves. The next product will be commercial, but freeware might be an option (especially if your survey comes out positive). Depends on the product. Probably. I can't afford to take the risk of becoming a full time developer, and anything I develop as a part time developer is unlikely to be rich enough to warrant any other developement channel. Many thanks to the people who responded to the poll. No thanks to all of you (especially in ARPA land) who ignored the poll. ====================================================================== Arndt Jonasson Bill Anderson Stephen Withers Brad Needham Carl Lizza Steve Munson Chuq Von Rospach David Oster Steven Grady David Somner Eirikur Hallgrimsson anonymous Fred Wamsley Fred_Swartz dataio!bjorn Henry M. Halff Herb Barad gwsd!revc J. Eric Roskos Jeffrey Shulman ll1!mn Joel West John Bruner reed!gil John W. Peterson Jon Pugh reed!nathan Julian Gomez Marc Andrew Sarrel stolaf!eilers Michael Leavitt Mike O'Dell Ned. D. Danieley Peter Korn Randy Wilson Roy Standing Spencer W. Thomas Stephen Follmer