What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
205 Comments
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -27/+175What gets to me is how WoW addicts can pay for the game itself, then a subscription, but will pirate Windows. Ever thought about what *runs* WoW? (lets talk about the Windows version of WoW too, any OS still applies though). For something that you pay once off, and should give you a minimum 5 years of usage, Windows (or even Mac OS X - don't know about it's lifespan that well though) is not that expensive. Let's actually look at prices -
Windows Vista Home Premium OEM (32Bit) - $145 (AUD) / $119.443 (USD)
Windows Vista Home Premium (Retail - academic edition) - $153 (AUD) / $126 (USD)
Mac OS X (Retail) - $175 (AUD) / $145 (USD)
Want to talk Office? 3 User license for -
Office 2007 Home & Student edition - $189 (AUD) / $155 (USD)
Office 2007 Ultimate Edition (for all Australian university students) - $75 (AUD) / $62 (USD)
Operating Systems are priced realistically. You just haven't bought it in that long you've forgotten how much it actually costs.
World Of Warcraft -
$25 (AUD) for the game, every 2 months after - $35 (AUD). Play the game for one year (not sure if there's an included 60 day card or not, don't play the game) - $25 + ( $35 * 5) = $200. $210 each subsequent year.
To those who pirate because they don't have enough money to buy an OS, I won't judge you, that's cool. Those who buy $89 (AUD) games after games, shame on you. Go get a license for your OS. You're probably the same people bitching about vulnerabilities and shortcomings in operating systems yet you don't even own it. You're only buying games because you can't play it online without a real CD-Key.
*end rant // expecting many negative digg's* - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+97Computer games are generally more complicated than most software you'll deal with short of an OS.
- dcharti, on 10/11/2007, -3/+49It's really too bad too; I've seen way too many donationware authors who have a killer, *killer* app on their hands pack up shop simply because they were trying to be nice by asking for donations instead of requiring a license. Ultimately they couldn't make a living out of it because of too many cheapskates, and couldn't keep breaking their back between their day job, families and other obligations to put time into what really needs to be a full time project.
Donating and paying for software will help developers keep making the products we want and, in many cases, rely on. - Robotsu, on 10/11/2007, -4/+46Yarr, a good pirate never gets caught.
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum and so forth. - Dudibob, on 10/11/2007, -14/+52No I feel that most software should sell like computer games. that's somewhere between £30 - £60 I feel is fair IMO compared to the £150+ price currently, is it any wonder why people pirate software?
If the software was a proper price, more people would buy it and more people would be skilled in computers (to a certain level). - fortezza, on 10/11/2007, -1/+35There are many fallatic assumptions in the article, and in the Software industry altogether.
1.Build the software and the customer will come.
Nope. No matter how hard you work on the design, development, etc of you software, there is no guarantee whatsoever that a single person will buy it. Even if you built the software using input from a group of apparently interested persons, you'd shouldn't be surprised if they don't purchase it when it is done. They never obligated themselves to buy your program.
2. People pay for things they don't have to pay for.
Well, people are funny like that. They'll over-spend for an expensive dinner, and then skimp on the groceries the next day. People buy what they think is worth the price, but they'll usually search for the lowest price ( include free ) and take the best deal that they can get. Conclusion, if they can get it for free...why not.
3. Perceived value.
Software that solved common problems has be largely commoditized and therefore marginalized. You wrote the next great word processor? It uses less memory and hard drive space than the competition? People could care less. The 1MB of memory and 100MB of disk space that your efficient software saves them is not even a blip in today's system resources radar. The features you offer are the same as what everyone else has, and whatever extra features that you offer just aren't worth the risk of them trying software different than what they are used to.
4. It came with the OS.
People are busy. Even technical people. Their computer is a tool, and once it can do what they need it to do, the search for software is over. Too bad that your software was released after they found what they needed. They don't need another calculator program, calendar program, or Web browser...the one they have gets the job done.
5. Cost-shifting.
Hmm, I want that new sportscoat to wear to the dance, but I also need the latest Adobe Photoshop software. My date will love the sportscoat, and care less about what photo-editing software I use. Plus, I only have enough money for one them. Plus-plus the price of gas is really skyrocketing. Hmm, if I copyright-violate ( pirating has nothing to do with software ) and get the free photoshop...then there is no longer a problem. Yeah...I'll do that.
6. Education.
Hmm, I want to be a network administator, Web developer, game designer, etc., but I cannot afford the applications to get experience with them. I know, I'll just get it all for free, then get the job that pays well enough that I can buy the apps. Of course, at that point, I'm using the apps daily at work, so maybe I'll never buy them.
7. Other reasons.
I could go on forever with the reasons, as each person has his own. But I think that I've made my point well enough.
ok, so there are many reasons that no one purchased your software, or not as many as you would have liked. Don't feel too bad, no one purchased the book that I wrote. The difference is that I knew that this was a possibility that my many hours of work would go unrewarded, some people ( companies ) are too detached from reality to come to the same realization.
- AlexFerny, on 10/11/2007, -7/+37I do pay for software, if its fairly priced - and I'm not talking it being cheap, I'm talking fair. For example lets use Vista Ultimate, people in USA pay $399, so since I live in UK - I expect to pay £201, but MS want to screw me and charge me £369 (which is $532) - so they lose my custom, simple - same for Adobe (well here we have another thing, I dont think thier software is worth the $2k price tag).
- AlexFerny, on 10/11/2007, -11/+40So Photoshop, even the basic version, is only for graphics designers who can afford the $700 price tag ...
So what are the rest of us ment to use? Paint?
Before, you use to have Fireworks (which cost about $100 I think) for the casual user and Photoshop with lots of advanced stuff for the advanced users - then Adobe bought Macromedia, so we dont have Fireworks anymore - great.
All the prices for the Macromedia software since Adobe bought them have gone up (funny that). - Anonymous3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+29In general, people like getting something of value at no cost. Deep down there's probably some overarching psychological reason for this like 'getting ahead at no loss = satisfaction'.
That, and Average Joe doesn't suffer from guilt on the internet. - hulalula, on 10/11/2007, -9/+34This post has me thinking about why I don't contribute unless there's a gun to my head. Hmmm. I think I have to be asked and then I usually say yes.
- shug7272, on 10/11/2007, -40/+64I can tell you why I dont. They over price the *****. Anything short of an OS should be 10 bucks tops.(dont yell at me there are exceptions) Then maybe they would sell 12 million copies and make a real profit. As it is now they hope to make a big profit off one sale. Who the hell is gonna pay 40 bucks for a defrag program when they can download it free. Pobably wont use it much, so hey ***** it, download it. Now if it was 9.99, I bet more people would just pay.
- getrealnow, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27pirates don't care about peoples needs yaaar!
Do we Like open source?
Yes, We like open source
but, does that 300 dollar program have a more mature/developed software? Yes
If people can get the best thing for free, then people will. But like always nothing comes free, you can get caught, and im sure you don't warranties and support.
Is the same reason we drive SUV's and use gasoline in our cars, its what were used to and its more convenient to us, and when most professionals use ie Adobe photoshop, you might as well to.
Not saying its right, but thats a partial reason - OmegaNine, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26I pay for windows, and the key software I use all the time (Ubuntu donations being part of that). But for me to buy every piece of software I want to play with would be hard. I have the worst case of ADD ever. One day I am using dreamweaver, the next I'm using photoshop.
I mainly pirate the stuff that I just want to learn and move on. Never know, one day I might need to know it, and if I am using it to make any kind of money, I will pay for it. But if I am just screwing around with the latest version of Adobe Premiere I am not going to fork out the several 100 bucks to play around. - WATYF, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23@Dudibob
"No I feel that most software should sell like computer games. that's somewhere between £30 - £60 I feel is fair IMO compared to the £150+ price currently, is it any wonder why people pirate software? If the software was a proper price, more people would buy it and more people would be skilled in computers (to a certain level)."
Unfortunately, I have a pretty decent (albeit anecdotal) piece of evidence that completely contradicts the self-deluded argument of "It's because evil companies charge too much for their crappy software that everyone pirates. We're just like freedom fighters!!".
The fact is... people are cheap. And largely unscrupulous (to various extents, of course). When they know they can get something for free (even when it should cost them money) and they know they can get away with it, and if they think it's "not really hurting anyone", they will more than likely take it.
Case in point... I wrote some software... (I'm one of "those guys" who writes donationware/shareware). At first it was fully donationware... it was a relatively simple program, but served a good purpose. It was all over the net (with thousands of downloads) for over a year, and yet I didn't get one single donation. This didn't really bother me, since I made the program for my own needs and simply decided to release it publicly for fun. It wasn't like this was a business venture.
So eventually, I decided to massively upgrade the software. I added a ton of new features and made it into (basically) a completely different app with a lot more to offer. At this point, I figured I had something that whould be worth something to people. So I released it as shareware with a 30 day trial and registration requirement. But I still wasn't looking to make a ton of money, so I made the price optional to the user. You can pick whatever price you want (as long as it's at least one dollar). Well, I've gotten plenty of one dollar registrations but I've also gotten plenty of 10-20 dollar registrations. So as you can see, price is not an issue with my software.
But I noticed that a lot more people were using it than had actually paid for it. I had a lot more hits from the registration portion of the software than I had actual paid users. Then one day, a guy emails me to say he has a problem with the software... so I email back and forth with him for a while and resolve his issues and at the end I ask him, out of curiosity, which software site he found my program on. He said, "Well, in all honesty, I got it off of a warez site". So here's a dude who's asking me to help him fix software that he stole from me. Software that only would have cost him one freaking dollar. So after this, I looked around, and lo and behold, my app is all over warez sites. Available to anyone for the taking. Now... I personally thought this was cool. I mean, some hacker took the time to hack *my* software. And again, I wasn't in this to make money, otherwise, I would have charged more for my software. But it did give me a very interesting perspective on software piracy.
That's why you can't tell me that people pirate as part of some noble fight against evil corporate greed and overpriced software. People pirate because they can. Because they want to get something for nothing and because they don't see any immediate consequence for doing so. That's all. *After* they've pirated, cognitive dissonance kicks in and they try to think of all kinds of reasons why their piracy is justified (and what better reason than "evil corporate greed"). But the reality is, people just want a free lunch. - abhiroop, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23Finally something really worth reading! Not putting down the submitters, just that the front page of digg is usually just a mirror for endgadget, pcworld, etc. Moving on to the question. So here are my reasons/observations:
1. I have come across a software that I looked at (description, features, etc.) and I thought to myself, wow this is great I'd really like to buy this, and then I look at the price tag: $44.99. Who would pay that much for a utility? Its not a game, not an OS, not even an OS, just something like a defragmenter or a disk cleanup. There is no way I would pay such an outrageous amount for such a simple peice of software. Of course it is not for me to decide, so in this case I'd just look for a different option.
2. Software, unlike hardware, is not something tangible, you can't hold it in your hand (well except the CD) and so it is difficult to put a price tag on it. Consider this you buy socks and you pay for the socks itself, not the fact that it cost to manufacture the socks (although that could be added into the price it is not the essential reason behind the pricing of the socks). On the other hand when you by software you are paying for something that will be installed on your computer, it has no physical value (this is much like books, if you buy a book you're not paying for the paper, but the intellectual property of the book - that's why ebooks are just as expensive). Anyway the problem is most people rationalise that if I download software and crack it I am essentially not hurting anyone becuase I would never have paid for it, so it's not as if the creator lost out (if I didn't crack it, he wouldn't get anything anyway). Since the software is not a physical object with intrinsic value it does not "feel" like stealing.
3. As for donationware, I personally think this is the single most ridiculous concept. It is almost like freeware. The author gives you a complete copy and then asks you to donate. The premise is good, as it expects people to be nice about it, etc. However, the sad reality is people want a free lunch, no matter what, and frankly you can't blame them, there are so many things people have to pay for (bills, etc) and if there is something that you can get away with without paying well people would take that route. If the author thinks he can make money with his product then he shouldn't make it donationware.
4. A lot of shareware I download to try out are usually quite pathetic programs. I am not saying I can do better, its just that I would pay $150 for windows xp, because I get a product that works, that does the task it is assigned and that looks good (sorry for the fanboism, however, I do like windows xp, never had a virus problem with it, and I'm very happy to pay for it). It is true the OS is expensive but when you think about it, it comes with a built in defrag, and a back up tool, and a firewall (all of which could easily cost $150). Not saying that those three are particularly good, but you do get them for $150! The point is I would buy a computer game because a) I enjoy playing them, b) they are well made, and c) they are good to look at. These criteria are all lacking in programs. I would download a program for utility purposes. For example I was looking for a good defrag tool (hence all the refrences to the same) because if your HD is over 16% full windows does not perform a defrag. Anyway I was looking at different products and I came across O&O defrag. It is a really great utility, however, it is not justified in asking for $49.99! 1/3 the price of windows xp! How many people do they expect will pay so much for a program that is already built into windows! Further defraging is something I do once a week, 50 for that? Perhaps if it was running the unreal engine! On the other hand I downloaded a tool called slick run (http://www.bayden.com/SlickRun/) which is an amazing little tool. Basically you program keywords into it and you type these to start programs. Personally I hate navigating the start menu, and I hated the aqua dock program becuase it was so slow. This program was JUST right! And I've even donated to them, because I genuinely liked the program.
Well that was long but there are my thoughts. Essentially I think that programmers deserve to be paid for well made software, however, the are not entitled to it. They can't get upset if they don't receive donations, or if their software is cracked. Its just a fact of life, people want free products. Perhaps if the product was reasonably priced, or the support was amazing, people would consider it. - Itazura, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20How does being selfish have anything to do with it? It is FREE with the option to donate. If you don't donate to red cross does that make you selfish? How about to a church, disease, homeless shelter? While you were so selflessly donating to a crappy video service how about the starving children?
- shug7272, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23@ GMorgan, you are absolutly right. Computer games cost MILLIONS if not TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars to develop and they sell for 50-60 bucks each. How the hell are you gonna justify charging 40-50 bucks for your upstart *****? Hell even Norton isnt worth it. One good video game can be in development for 3 years and cost 10's of millions of dollars but Norton or McAfee or whatever gets cranked out once a year, same old ***** and it sucks PLUS they charge you more than that video game. Morons. Maybe thats why they cant make a buck, they dumb... dumb as hell.
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22When do you get caught. I assure you 99.999999% of pirates don't get caught. Maybe companies but not people.
- Qyasogk, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20Costs of living are way up, rent is up, health care is up, wages are FLAT. Net effect = less disposable income. What really pisses me off are things like Steam. Where they're charging full retail price for games that were released five years ago. Their only cost is the download bandwidth, I've got no cd, no book, no box, and if Valve goes offline, I can't play my game anymore. One would think that would qualify for some sort of discount? I have the same issue with Xbox live movie rentals. Until they're cheaper than Blockbuster, and decide to use a less shady method of pricing (500 points costs is how many dollars?) I'll just go to Blockbuster.
- SteveMax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18"gets cranked out once a year, same old ***** and it sucks PLUS they charge you more"
This sounds a lot like EA's sports titles... - xTRUMANx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20I've gotta say it's due to the lack of method for me to pay. I don't have a credit card nor anyway to get my money into a paypal account. However, even if I did have the means, I'm not sure if i would be sending my money all over the place except for the most 'worthy'.
There's one thing to keep in mind however: $5 or $10 may not sound like much, but if you look at the big picture and have thousands of people sending a small amount in, it can easily become a very useful contribution. - Matt2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15> They over price the *****. Anything short of an OS should be 10 bucks tops.
You don't actually program for a living, do you? Writing good software that supports a variety of tasks is HARD and takes a lot of patience and time.
A defragmenter program costs $40 because
1. It's probably targeted to the small business
2. Writing a defragmenter is hard. And carries a heavy liability.
3. $10 to include development time, possibly including support. Are you kidding? This isn't something your average cash register clerk can do. It's a specialized talent. It takes years and years of practice to be a good programmer. And sometimes not even then. Can you write a defragmenter for $10?
4. Perception of value or time: There have been times when I've been in a crunch and needing a particular tool, and given the option of spending a few hours ***** around with some buggy command line utility I grabbed from sourceforge, I'll instead choose to spend the $30 or whatever and get a nice instant-gratification downloadable utility that holds my hand and simply gets the job done. So I can't tweak the VBR encoding algorithim at the quantizer level. But then again, I don't really need that capability at the moment. I have a 5PM deadline. The one I just bought is up and going in five minutes. There was a time in my life where I would spend half a day fooling around googling for a free swiss army knife tool so I wouldn't have to buy that $20 black box. Those days are long gone. - generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -14/+29Or, run WoW on GNU/Linux.
- xino, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I have never donated to an open source project, but I have donated to twit.tv because I love the shows on there and wanted to thank them for all the hard work. So not being selfish makes people idiots?
- grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15> What if they believe Microsoft's business practices are unethical and so to support them buy paying for their software would be immoral?
I hope you don't have a car, because I am having real trouble thinking of somewhere you can fill up. - estvir, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116202 - $119.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116143 - $149.99
Not to mention all the * legal * ways to get Vista free/cheap like MSDN Academic, student pricing ,etc. But yeah, with a lot of software you end up paying for things you do not want/need.
Edit: Sorry, replied to wrong person but I'll add something.
Edit: daza, don't forget http://www.itsnotcheating.com.au/ where you can buy Office 2007 Ultimate for $75AU saving over $1000AU. :)
For me the main reasons are:
- Paying for things I do not want/need.
- Just plain ridiculous prices.
- 'Not convincing enough'
- Free alternatives which do the job as good if not better
- Pirating is oh-so-easy - FatherMario, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16It's partially due to the cost factor. The price for most software is not reasonable.
Most of the PCs in our church office used to run on Windows 98 and Windows XP till recently. We had installed OpenOffice, along with some other free applications. We were not willing to pay for more XP licenses or Vista/Office licenses, because we believed that the money could be utilized for better purposes -- we need very basic functionality and don't want to waste our money on advanced features.
Recently, we migrated all our machines to Ubuntu CE. We purchased the CDs (I know we could've got it for free also) -- the price was reasonable and that's our way of supporting the project.
If the software is reasonably priced, people don't mind paying.
Of course, in case of individuals, upbringing also plays a major role. People who believe in moral and ethical values prefer to pay for a software than download an illegal copy/crack. - emfb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13@xTRUMANx
"think of it this way: if no one donated, there would be free software (or at the very least, alot less of them and of less quality)."
You may wish that was true but it isn't. Nobody but a damn fool writes free software because they think they will make money off of it. They write software because that's what they like to do. And they get to enjoy the benefits of writing free software: not having to meet a schedule, freedom to write what they want , no boss or customers to keep happy.
- KicktheDonkey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"What if they believe Microsoft's business practices are unethical and so to support them buy paying for their software would be immoral?"
Then you shouldn't use their software.
It's a very simple decision, really. - EnigmaXII, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Software is a tool,
If you use your tools for work - it's reasonable to pay for nice tools
if you use your tools as a hobby, chances are you're broke as %uc>| - bokono37, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13I am a student. I am living on the MGIB and my parents's ramen. I have every intention to donate to the developers of the open-source software I use when I am again a productive member of society who is gainfully employed.
- raynar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Thats what I said, while I had Napster running 24/7.
- keyboardashtray, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11The question "why aren't people donating" is the better question of the two, and I think a lot more people would donate if it was as easy as putting a buck in the tip jar at a coffee house. I don't think it's just about dollars and cents; if I was face to face with the Spybot S&D guy or Metanet who made that great little N game, I'd drop a couple bucks in the cup. I know that it isn't THAT hard to give through a credit card or Paypal, but ultimately you still have to dish out a credit card number and a whole bunch of other info to somebody. Then you get to thinking "how much is too little, should I even bother"...
As for the "why aren't people buying", like a bunch of other folks said, it's too damn expensive. Lots of us have been getting raped on the price of software since we were ten shelling out 50-60 bucks for a NES cartridge. I've never understood why companies charge so much for media when the medium is so cheap - why not go for the quantity approach and sell 20 CDs for one dollar apiece instead of one CD for 20 dollars? Over-simplified, but as long as companies are out to rip you off, I'm going with the free option every time. And they *are* out to rip you off - I wanted to buy a copy of Monopoly after not being able to find a good enough free clone, and they wanted 20 bucks for a downloaded version of it, and extra 5 for a "backup" CD. For some Windows 98 version of Monopoly. Tsss. Found it in the bargain bin at Best Buy. Take that, Hasbro! - TimberManiac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Most of the five year old games I see on Steam are $10, $20 at most. In fact, their catalog only has a few $50 games, with the sub £20 games vastly outnumbering the $30 and over ones.
Deus Ex GOTY edition, for example, is a mere $9.95 and you get a fully patched version that supports wide-screen monitors and Vista. Not to mention the fact that you can remove and re-download the games as many times as you like, as well as burn a backup to CD/DVD. For me at least it's pretty good value.
I'm totally with you on the xbox live stuff though ;-) - PueSi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Yeah, imagine if Linux (Ubuntu for example) had a price tag of say $100 no one would be switching.
That's the only attractive thing that Linux has for me, being free since.
Although i would pay for some Open Software or freeware but they better be super cheap, i would gladly pay 5-10 bucks for uTorrent for example but not 30. - adka85, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I think people most software piracy is done on programs which are either:
a) only used once - or barely at all
For example if you're going on a long distance journey and you want to watch some videos on your mobile phone you're not going to pay for the software to allow you to convert your files because you only need the program now and then never again.
b) should have been incorporated in the operating system in the first place.
Nero is a heavily pirated piece of software - the reason why is because it's incredibly useful. However, there is no reason that the pure functionality of burning a data DVD via windows reliably should not have been built into the operating system. Many of the features of Nero remain unused, but if you're pirating the program anyway you may as well get the full ultra edition. - ninj3, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13@AlexFerny
You could use Photoshop elements, premiere or whatever it's called which are stripped down versions.
And I wasn't saying the price was decent, just that Adobe doesn't give a crap what home consumers think. Companies think it's worth it and pay for it. That's good enough.
And like you say, there really isn't too much competition in that area. So nothing's stopping them hiking up the price more especially after they bought out macromedia. - lionslair, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I think a lot will have to do with trusting the site they give money to. Knowing what is done with your details and payment details worries me.
- lcarsdeveloper, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I use a lot of licensed software. I was proud to pay a $20 for a full gold lifetime license for Mediamonkey (unlimited updates!), it was worth every cent because they do such a great job. I paid for vBulletin, it's more expensive but saves me a lot of time and effort in the long run (got sick of wasting so much time upgrading and modifying phpBB2, then having to reapply modifications every time a new version came out, having to constantly worry about hackers etc). I also just recently paid for a great piece of software called Intelliremote. I tried it first, the freeware version with a couple of disabled features. I liked it so much that I bought the full version for $10, a few hours later the author sent me a link to the download along with a nice thankyou email.
Also paid for FlashChat, cost me $5 for the full licensed version, and all future updates.
These people are worth paying, ripping them off would be like ripping off one of our own :P - RobSaint, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"Costs of living are way up, rent is up, health care is up" So software developers should work for nothing right?!
I live in London. My rent is way higher than it would be on 80% of the planet. Yet my wages aren't. The cost of living is way higher too.
But I feel that it is only fair to pay for something if you're gonna use it. Everyone needs to make a living. Especially the little guy who comes up with that great software you love, and only asks for a donation.
If you like it and can spare the cash... give something back! - dcharti, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6""Costs of living are way up, rent is up, health care is up" So software developers should work for nothing right?!"
Right on. It seems the availability of pirated software on the web makes it all too easy for people to believe "well, I'm getting screwed by [insert some outside force here], so now I have the right to screw someone else!"
It's lame justification, and I would love to hear their reaction once their boss says "well, I'm getting screwed by budget cuts, so your paycheck gets cut in half from here on out!"
Real people are spending all the time to research and build this software we're using. Whether it's a company like Microsoft with whom you might not agree or some donationware author who is typically trying to be nice since they know most people hate software licensing, these are real people, trying to make a real living. Just like you and me. The fact that their products are easier to steal and [insert whatever you make or provide at your job here] is not changes nothing, except for the silly justification you use for ripping someone off in the first place.
If you use someone's product it is of value to you. Period.
You can't walk into a Best Buy and tell them that only half the features in that HD TV are worth it to you, pay for only half the TV - or, perhaps more accurately to our situation: simply not pay for it at all - and walk out. The anonymity of the internet is what allows people to steal software guilt-free and develop silly psychological roadblocks like "you're an idiot if you pay for something you can find for free." Interesting - then maybe I'll be an idiot when I'm your boss some day and chop your paycheck in half because I feel the work you do is only worth half of what you're actually getting paid.
And in the case of Microsoft, which some people don't want to support by paying for their software, what do you think you're doing by *using* it? You're adding to their market share statistic numbers and you're still giving them anonymous feedback while running their software. In some ways, that might be even more valuable to them than throwing down for a license. - rdoger6424, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Ubuntu CE?
"Father" in FatherMario = Priest? - jambarama, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5For me, most of the free software I use in Windows is stuff that doesn't do very much. I want to find a program to extract an icon from an ICL file, I don't want to pay $20--I'm going to use it once.
I'll pay for MS Office or Photoshop--the educational versions of both, I can't afford full versions--because I use them a lot, and they are multi-functional. - TheTankengine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@fortezza
Why should you send in 5 or 10 bucks for every single program you've ever downloaded? Ever heard of overkill?
If you think the application is worthy of your money and you would like to support its development, then donate. It's that simple. It is not "nickel and diming" when you choose your own contribution level. - skitboxkilla, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"Personally i'm of the belief that if i've spent £120 for an operating system and then have to download another 20 programs to get it to run right, i shouldn't have to pay for them." sam991
An interesting contribution to an essential debate! It would however, appear that you are happy to benefit from the efforts of a few small developers, to make-up for the failings of whomever provides your os. If these 20 developers didn't enable you to use your computer as you wished, would you withold the £120 for the os?
Personally, I love to tweak stuff. However, I don't plan on stealing tyres for my bike just because I don't like the ones it came with... ;) - vegasmacguy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6My $0.02...
Most people can't afford the high cost of effective software. If I want photoshop results I need photoshop. The only problem is that I can't afford photoshop. So my alternative is to either pirate it or use a lesser program that is free or shareware. Honestly, most shareware programs can't come close to what photoshop can do and no OSS programs (e.g. Gimp) has a truly usable UI. So where am I left? Using pirated software or producing inferior results. People want the power and flexibility of the big guns but can't afford it.
Software companies need to wake up and realize that there is a huge home user market out there that is untapped. If I could go buy a non-crippled version of Photoshop for under $50.00 I would. I've purchased both Microsoft Flightsim and xPlane because both were within my budget. I have purchased $20 shareware programs that I use on a regular basis because they are user friendly, useful and a fair price. Yes I have pirated software, but if I can afford it and I truly get use out of the program I will buy it.
When I find a good product, I recommend those products to many people who don't pirate their software. When working for a business and they need a solution I usually have an answer in shareware or even professional software I have tried out at home, leading to sometimes thousands of dollars in sales. Maybe this sounds like a justification, and just maybe it is. However, it is the truth.
My suggestion for a pricing model for professional and shareware software is laid out as follows:
Split the markets but keep the features. Charge businesses a higher price because they use your software to make money. For the home user don't force them to break the bank in order to learn your software. They could pass on what they learn to their boss or company and end up making more sales for you.
1) Operating Systems: Full version $99/Upgrade $39
2) Production Software (Office, Photoshop, etc..) : Full Price for businesses / $50-$100 for individuals and not-for-profit
2a) Production Suites (Final Cut Studio, Adobe Creative Suite, etc..): Full Price for businesses / $200-$400 for individuals
3) High end Utility and Personal Productivity Software: Full price for businesses/$25-$50 for individuals (One time cost, none of that Subscription BS - 4) a.k.a. Symantec )
4) Low End Utility Software: Full price for businesses/$10-$25 for personal use
5) Games: $10-$30
As for free software, I have written my own freeware programs. And I have not received one penny for my work. I'm not bitter, but disappointed. This has drastically slowed down the development of my programs as they are pretty much relegated to my spare time. If people actually clicked the PayPal donation button on my site a little more often I would definately update more often and release more titles. I can tell you from experience that it is discouraging for someone who writes free software to receive no donations or compensation for his work. Even a dollar here or there would be enough to keep me going. - ph30nix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Why don't I pay for some software?
well, I don't have $200+ to drop on windows vista. I don't use half of the programs bundled into the burn software I use (I've gone open source for that at this point). I won't pay $50 for a video conversion software for my cell phone when there's a free version somewhere else that does it just as well. If I'm spending any amount of money, I want a physical product too, i.e., I'm not going to buy Nero without getting it at a store, but $60 is too much for what I use it for.
I just can't justify paying for half the things I barely use. $1000 for CS3? forget it...i'd rather do photo editing in paint if that were my choice. - shawnz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Simple: Why? It isn't like stealing something tangible; the only thing they're losing is opportunity. In fact, it's opportunity they never had anyway, since if the free option wasn't available i wouldn't have bought the software anyway, since, once again, there's no point. I'd rather spend my money on food and water and electricity than some program of which an alternative probably exists anyway.
- Sartori, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@Flamekebab:
Then they pay someone else for their software instead of MS! :) - DonutGuy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"3. As for donationware...."
Say a developer relies quite largely on GPL'd code to build their software and then sells it. It only takes one person to buy and they can distribute it as much as they like due to the licence. It's a choice of making it freeware or removing the GPL'd code. If you can add a donation button on your webpage in a few minutes and earn money from it, why not?
Money isn't a consderation that goes into developing the software. It's usually done for enjoyment. There are no shareholders making decisions, which is why it's often a better product than the proprietary alternatives.
I don't want a free lunch. They're free because they're plain and crap. I wan't to pay for my lunch and make my baker happy, then she'll enjoy making me a nice lunch the next day. -
Show 51 - 100 of 205 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is