> Ah. Well if the distinction is the one given in Wikipedia, > then lots of software I thought was commercial is really > shareware. Here's a list of stuff I would have considered > commercial that are, I guess, really shareware: > > Transmit > OmniOutliner > OmniGraffle > FileMaker > OpenBase > REALbasic > > I know there are lots of others. > > I'm thinking making the word "shareware" has basically become > meaningless.
Will, Im glad you brought up the wikipedia reference -- it's a bit more prescriptive than descriptive in a purely archeological sense :-) Looking at wikipedia, there are terms like crippleware or nagware that refer to types of shareware products, but I don't see those as quite representative as they came up later to define license types rather than the phenomenon of shareware -- that is _all_ of the following: 1. Someone releases a product that isnt going through conventional channels like retail; they may have rejected it, failed at it utterly, or have no knowledge or understanding of it 2. That someone has a license attached that allows for some kind of payment method, and may or may not be crippled to have less functionality; 3. That someone isnt held up to the same industry standards as other providers of applications; overall quality may be "substandard" -- or may not. 4. Support may be personal or non-existent, but likely very inconsistent 5. The product could die with the developer(s) health, state of marriage or level of interest. When I sit down with press, distributors or reviewers, we don't quibble about the definition, but I think there is a general understanding, and points 1, 3-5 are generally thought as negatives, and those negatives hang onto the word "shareware", despite efforts to shake it off. But here at least, lots of people love underdogs. When I was at MacWorld last month, I talked with a number of companies that had booths (and one has been brought up here) that I classify as shareware in the negative sense - not for quality of their product but that I know that given their current practices they will _never_ achieve the level of success I know they could achieve if they changed their practices. But ultimately, I know they won't. And if it's a product concept that I think is really interesting and profitable, Ill just pitch it to a current client to get them to do it, or consider if I can get my own development team to put out something comparable. Best regards, Lynn Fredricks President Proactive International, LLC - Because it is about who you know.(tm) http://www.proactive-intl.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
