Not everyone is as honest as you or I. I would venture a guess that the
vast majority of people would use s/w without paying for it, if they
could get full use (ie. no protection at all).
Why do I say that? There are very many very fine programs out there
that are unquestionable superior to all others. If everyone registered
those programs, that used them, there would be palm developers making
millions. I don't see that happening.
I'm quite sure that fine products, if they did not have any protection,
would be used but not paid for, by the majority of users.
Now, the good side is that the developer does not lose anything because
those users would have never paid anyway, with or without protection.
But, why should they accomodate these people.
If it would increase sales to have no protection, then it would be worth
letting these others have it for free, but people who register s/w
probably aren't put off by nag screens and protection.
I know they don't bother me.
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Michael Schatz wrote:
> take this next paragraph with a grain of salt. Just want to put another
> view out there
>
>
> <stepping up on the soap box>
>
> I am a usual lurker in this forum, but I see this thread going back to the
> same argument as another and that is forcing the user to pay for the
> software. I think as many will agree. If a user likes the software he will
> pay for it. There is no 'one way' to make it right. I think that we should
> concentrate more on making a product that is usable and desirable that the
> user feels compeled to regester it or feels like a complete smuck for
> freeloading. I typically know myself within the first couple of uses
> whether a program is a keeper or not and is at that point I decide wether to
> regester it or not. The main factor in deciding is the program not how long
> can I use it without paying for it. If that was the case I would just get
> software from the warez sites and be done with it.........
>
> <stepping down off the soap box>
>
> Sorry if I offended anyone, just wanted to put another point of view out
> there..
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael S. Davis [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 12:51 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: shareware grace period initialization
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Tom Zerucha wrote:
> >
> > > Also, it is best not to use a fixed period. I download and look at a
> > lot
> > > of stuff and it is often more than 30 days before I can get back to it
> > and
> > > the last thing I want is EXPIRED! the second time I use something. Use
> > 30
> > > (or less) use-days, i.e. increment a counter when it is being used on a
> > > different day than the last time.
> >
> > This really depends on the application. For daily use type apps this
> > might be good. But for once-in-a-while apps, that's too long. Take an
> > app that creates icons for instance. One would get virtually unlimited
> > use if the counter was only incremented each time it was used. Or, take
> > an app that cleans up the system. Giving 30 tries might be equivelant
> > to several years use.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Shoot-to-Win
> >
> > Protect the 2nd Amendment
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
----------------------------------------------------
Shoot-to-Win
Protect the 2nd Amendment
----------------------------------------------------
