Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!att!ihuxy!vg55611 From: vg55611@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Gopal) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Painter's Apprentice (paint program for EGA) Summary: people who live in glass houses.. Message-ID: <2814@ihuxy.ATT.COM> Date: 21 Jan 89 22:48:20 GMT References: <2027@sunrise.ece.clarkson.edu> <101000034@hpcvlx.HP.COM> Reply-To: vg55611@ihuxy.UUCP (55611-Gopal,V.P.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 65 In article nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >In article <101000034@hpcvlx.HP.COM> everett@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Everett Kaser) writes: >Perhaps the documentation doesn't reflect the fact, but I genuinely >feel that Painter's Apprentice is free, i.e. available for use at no >cost and no guilt. Pay for it if you wish, don't pay if you don't >wish. However, IF you pay, then you will get some extra parts that >you might find useful (but which are not necessary), and you have some >assurance that PA will continue to be improved (there is MUCH room for >improvement). I must also disagree with your attitudes, Russ, even though you are entitled to them. To me, it seems that the term "crippleware" describes software that has been made less useful by omitting certain features or functionalities. There are many programs out there that provide a great deal of usefulness even though they are not complete, I would not call them "crippleware". Your description of your package seems to make it look like it is crippleware also. By making it less useful than it would be otherwise and saying "please pay me and I'll give you something more complete", you are hardly doing anything different from the other programs that ask for similar stuff. Your reasons (as described by you) are NO different from that of other shareware authors for asking for money. >I used the pejorative terms Beggarware and Crippleware to show my >distaste for these marketing schemes. Beggarware gives the purchaser >nothing in return for their money. Crippleware usually involves >crippling the program. My method, for which I have no name, >essentially gives away the full, uncrippled program as an >advertisement for support and extra data to use with the program. I could argue that "Beggarware" puts the customers in a much better position than yours does - they are offering the COMPLETE package to the customer and are not holding something back, saying "please pay if you want this last piece". At least they get to evaluate the complete package. Thus your statement about "Beggarware gives the purchaser nothing in return for their money" seems to me like "Beggarware gives the purchaser EVERYTHING even before getting their money". Surely, I agree with you, it is a WEAK (poor, bad) marketing strategy. But that's looking at it from the point of view of the seller, not the buyer. It is an excellent scheme for the buyer (most of whom do not pay anything and get it all). >I am in no way married to this scheme (actually I am married to Heather >Nelson :-) and am trying it as an experiment. Feel free to apply cogent >argumentation to change my mind. Your scheme will hopefully work better than "Beggarware", even though I thing it is really no different from "Crippleware" (perhaps a mild form of it). Anyway, I think it will work better than "Beggarware", I hope it will, for I would like to see you benefit from all the work that must have gone into it. >If I were to give away source and the extra data then I would be >politically correct, i.e. a Free Software person. In any case, >support costs, because I won't improve PA unless my wallet is >convinced that people are using it, AND I will be obligated to improve >it if I take money to do so. Did somebody say something about "hostageware" ? >--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Venu P. Gopal UUCP: att!ihuxy!vg55611 Internet: vg55611@ihuxy.att.com BITNET: com%"vg55611@ihuxy.att.com" or com%"vg55611%ihuxy@research.att.com"