Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!eris!mwm From: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Shareware ideas Message-ID: <3375@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Wed, 29-Apr-87 07:08:03 EDT Article-I.D.: jade.3375 Posted: Wed Apr 29 07:08:03 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 2-May-87 07:50:46 EDT References: <1611@rutgers.RUTGERS.EDU> Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 179 Warning: the following material is highly inflammatory. I consider shareware to be an evil second only to copy protection in the software world. Read, and see why. But you've been warned about this... In article <1611@rutgers.RUTGERS.EDU> RFORSTER@UNCAEDU.BITNET writes: > Is Shareware about to die out? We can hope so! > We have a few other fellows on the net like BOLS EWACS, Matt Dillon, >Dave Wecker... who have provided some really good stuff gratis, but >how long will this last without a tangible carrot on the stick? Well, it's been going on since before there were micros, and will probably be going on as long as there are computers. I don't know about the people you've named, but I suspect they write software for much the same reason I do: because they need the tools, or want to see if they can make the machine do magic. The only reason MicroGNU exists is because I wanted all my GNU habits to work on my Amiga (I still haven't figured out what drives the others in the project, who are responsible for it being what it is). Once I've built the tool/spiffy hack, there's no reason not to give it away. Of course, you also overlooked that there _is_ a carrot. Every letter I get telling me how much someone appreciates mg or small tex or is a kick. It makes me want to do that kind of thing again. > What I fear might happen is that when commercial (as opposed to Fred >Fish) distribution of Shareware and Public Domain programs starts to >happen some people are going to start feeling ripped off and the, so far >excellent, stream of good, cheap software is going to dry up. I doubt it. I was around when this started happening before. People writing good, PD software for the CP/M-80 market (there was no Piece of Crap back then) started seeing others sell their software, and make money off of it. There was an outcry on the net then, and some really nasty words flew around. People started putting copyright notices in their software saying that things "could not be sold, or packaged with software that is being sold." Gee, that seemed to have stopped that. And people kept right on turning out free software for CP/M-80 boxes. Now, the successors to the people who were selling PD software are trying to get do it again, except they are conspiring with the authors. > ********* Do We Really Need Shareware? ********* > Yes we do! Oh, horse pucky. There's exactly _three_ pieces of shareware I've even considered using. I'm not even sure the amiga arc is shareware, and only use it because others are obnoxious enough to use it. The other two are the ASDG RRD; which has a well-known, respected company behind it instead of some unknown hacker, and a logo implementation, which asked that you send money to a _charity_, and only if you haven't contributed a similar-sized project to the world. The logo I wouldn't have considered using if it had had the standard bloodsucker shareware notice. In other words, I don't need shareware. I've got a lot, but only because I try to keep a complete collection of Fish disks, and he puts shareware on them. If he didn't distribute shareware, I'd never notice. >The primary reason is that only the Shareware distribution >system can avoid the high overheads that commercial software distribution >entails. ST feathers. If it weren't for FREE software, the shareware channels wouldn't exist. The BBS/usenet/clubs existed, and were swapping software, before there was shareware. There were even people selling "Best of the PD" disks. If there is any justice, those same channels will exist long after shareware is a forgotten term. >The primary benifits to the end user are that he gets to test >the software before buying it and MOST IMPORTANTLY applications for which >there is little apparent demand can still be distributed, for example the >AmigaMonitor program (it saved my hide once so I paid up). The same arguments apply to free software. And given honest software dealers, it's possible to return software for a cash refund. I bought my first MANX compiler (for CP/M-80) on a "try it for 30 days" deal they had. In other words, these aren't really benefits of shareware, but benefits of free software and dealing with honest software vendors. > The benefits to the free lance hacker are largly unrestricted >freedom of expression and the ensuing joy of creating the program HE/SHE >wants to Gee, that's odd. I've got that now. And I don't ask for anything when I give away software, just that my name not be taken from the product. I don't even put in disclaimers saying you can't sell something, just so long as my name stays on it. Of course, if someone has a toy of mine that they want to sell, I won't argue if I get royalty checks. >as well as some possibility of financial returns (ya got to pay for >that Amiga somehow), Well, we are back to the problem again, you just >can't eat Fame. Ah, we get to the nub of the problem. Someone wants to make a few bucks off of there program, but aren't willing to pay for a real distribution. Got news for you: I've had two offers for real bucks directly attributable to giving away my software. Matt Dillon has gotten free software for it. People have suggested that Fred Fish be given free hardware, and have suggested that money be sent to Wecker (gotten any, Dave?). In other words, you _can_ eat fame. You just have to market it right. Or maybe you have to produce something both impressive and usefull to a large number of people. > The solution I am proposing is that we Shareware programmers should >demand some form of royalty payment directly from those who would like to >distribute our works. What you mean we, paleface? Of course, the software is yours, and you can do with it as you like. Just don't expect me to pay for it if you without providing evidence that you have real support. > In consideration of the royalty is seems fair that the distributer >be given exclusvive rights to distribute that particular version (FLAME >PROOF SUIT ON) Leor Zolman claimed that the worst thing he ever did was give Lifeboat exclusive rights to BDS C. It didn't turn them much profit, so they didn't bother advertising it. As a result, it didn't get much use, in spite of the fact that it was one of the first two CP/M-80 C compilers around, and ran faster than any other C compiler on CP/M-80 systems (probably still does), and came with a couple of disks full of spiffy utilities. At least, it didn't get much use until the contract lapsed, and leor started selling it himself. You also loose all the cheap distribution channels you were talking about earlier. What you're talking about doing is a publisher of cheap software. That's been tried before. I don't think any of the people who did it are still in business [anyone else remember JRT Pascal?]. It may work this time, but I wouldn't bet on it. Ok, so why do I think shareware is such a crock? Because, for the most part, it looks like somebody like me, who for some reason or another has written a program, is trying to turn a few bucks on it. Worse yet, they are using *other* peoples money to do the distribution. You get a piece of software off of the PD channels. It looks neat, but is missing some vital piece - like documentation, or a "save" command, or whatever. You've got instructions to send money to some person you've never heard of. If you send it in, you don't know if you'll get anything back at all, much less something that's actually worth what you're paying for. It's no damn wonder that so little money comes back in to the shareware bloodsuckers. Compare that to free software. It comes as complete as it's going to get. You get to decide if what you've got is worth using, and aren't asked for a dime. On the flip side, if you want a phone number and someone to scream at, you can pay for real software. If you're smart, you at least get a chance to look at it (and the documentation) before you buy it. You may even be able to return it. In short, shareware gives you the worst of both free software and paid-for software, and none of the benefits. It sucks software from the free software pool. All so somebody who's to lazy to try and bring something to the level where a software publisher is willing to carry it can still make money. Yuch. If you want to make money selling software, play the game for real. If you want free distribution, don't ask people to pay for your product. Death to shareware!