Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd From: madd@bucsb.UUCP (madd (Madd(ly) lost in the Net....)) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga Subject: Re: Piracy << WARNING: SEVERE FLAMES AHEAD >> (long) Message-ID: <226@bucsb.UUCP> Date: Sun, 13-Apr-86 21:56:20 EST Article-I.D.: bucsb.226 Posted: Sun Apr 13 21:56:20 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Apr-86 09:48:05 EST Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci. Lines: 110 In message <1844@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> cthulhu@athena.MIT.EDU writes: >I really with I could understand people who defend prices of $100 for a paint >package, but it just doesn't make sense to me, and I'm a software developer >myself. Software piracy is bad, but it is undeniably deserved. Great, says >the purchaser of a spiffy new Amiga, look at all the things I can do, and for >-only- $1295. Depleted wallet in hand, he goes to his local computer store to >buy some software. First, he wants to draw pretty pictures. $100. Then >he might want to program in a decent language. $300 more. Next, it might >be nice to word process something. $100, please. That`s $500, just to do >THREE THINGS. Hardly even justifies multitasking, especially since you >can't with any of the evilly copy-protected, resource-stealing software... >There is absolutely no excuse. It takes more effort, >and probably more talent, to write a book, yet they're sold for $3. But >they cost more to make, say the apologists. Sure, each book may cost >$0.10 to produce, while software costs, say $2. But they don`t sell as many >copies, they whine. Not always so. Many programs now sell more copies than >books. We're paying the cost of software piracy, that's why the prices are >so high. Wrongo. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Without >software, the machines are useless, and people feel ripped off since they >can`t pay the exorbitant prices. Anger is wonderful at removing moral >qualms. >The best thing companies could do is to lower >their prices to a reasonable level where people would begin to be able to >afford the software, and use their computers. Perhaps then legality would >win out over expedience when it comes to acquiring software. >$100 is, quite simply, insane. > - Jim Reich I don't know how many people agree with this, but from my experience what Jim is saying hits home. I can see why companies are asking the $100+ prices (how long may Amiga last? Unable to tell when they made it -- so make the profits NOW) but in the long run they will get ripped off. Being a developer myself (not big-time, yet, but well enough known in my hometown) as well as a semi-user (if it works, why write it myself?) I see both sides of the story. To date my favorite company is Borland. Why? They market things like Turbo Pascal (I have a CPM machine) for ~$70. WORTH MUCH MORE! Especially since there aren't any stupid fees to pay if you make something with it and want to sell it. This is only an example, other companies do much the same. But as the developer, with your sparkling, new, unique, easy-to-use, fun thingy, you want bucks, now. The way to make your money is not to sell each individual package for a lot of money, but rather just a bit less than you think people will pay for it. Why less? Read on. Nobody wants to spend more money than they have to. After only one or two software buys, the novice is quickly educated as to "good" and "bad" deals. Most often their views are that the software is fine, but was it really worth that godawful price? Let's say the user found a neat compiler selling for $50. "All these OTHER compilers are $400" he says. "There must be a catch." But, being an educated person, he asks anyway. After all, it's only $50. Alas! The program is highly regarded by a lot of people. He spends the $50 on an original (unprotected. I am a registered member of _Software_Protection_ Haters_Everywhere_, a non profit group created right now. Mail to join) instead of GASP $100 on a copying program (that may or may not work on this scheme anyway) to duplicate the $400 program. Does this sound like I don't know what I'm talking about? Wrong. I use PC's a lot and have just one copy program. The one supplied on the boot disk. I have just one compiler, the aforementioned TPascal (source-compatible w/ my CPM, UC) and very few other programs that I didn't write. I bought the CPM TPascal, and the company I work for bought the PC version, at my request. I refuse to pay those kind of prices (seen WordStar 2000 prices lately) when it costs much less to write it myself. Yet I did buy Borland's program, rather than copy it or write it myself. It's a good deal, better than it should be. Those people who can't write them may buy the cheap one because it's cheap. In my experience, many people will sacrifice quality for a good price. I have sold many programs to people I know. With just one exception they went $10 apiece, source included. There are very few illegal copies floating around, because people feel better when they paid for it. The stuff I make may not be of the same quality as a major producer's #1 program, but it's bugproof because *I* use it, fast, easy to use, and useful. Worth more than $10 (this isn't a personal opinion, I asked people). I make decent money this way. Like I said before, I understand why they want their money fast. But the other side of the coin is that they will (not might -- will) sell more copies if they keep the price down. OK, they may not make as much this way. Now, that is. A year later when the person sees a wordprocessor in his favorite store, written by XYZ company, he says "Gee, that's the company that made my compiler. It was a good deal. Probably this is too. And the price is right." Another sale. Dedicated users come because of inexpensive, useful programs. I am one. I also hope to be the company people are dedicated to. Most of the above is based on personal opinion. But in asking, I have found that many of my fellow enthusiasts agree with me. Flames back? I appreciate the other point of view. I hope there are other developers who think along the same lines, or who are infuenced by this. Let there be inexpensive software for the masses! -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ : Jim Frost : "You just gotta smile through it" : : : "The Earth is just too small and fragile : : ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd : a basket for mankind to keep all of its : : cscc71c%bostonu.bitnet@wiscvm : eggs in."--Robert A. Heinlein : : USnail: 75 Washington St : "What the hell, put 'em all in one : : Laconia, NH 03246 : basket"--Me : +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+