🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan Parvaz wrote:
> 
> |           Shareware is a blight upon humanity
> 
> Aren't you exaggerating just a *bit*?  However, since you bring the point
> up, why are shareware programmers a "blight", and not people who insist on
> using other people's property without permission? That's what it means to
> use a piece of shareware beyond the license period.  Rationalize all you
> want, but that's the bottom line.
> 
> |                                                  by definition,
> |shareware authors are amateur programers who program for fun, and not
> |to put food on their table.
> 
> Ahem.  Just about all the shareware authors I know (particularly the
> Newton crowd) are professional developers, consultants, etc.  Hardy
> Macia?  Steve Weyer?  "amateur programers (sic)"?  Bite your tongue.
> 
> |                            Why not be a freeware programmer instead?
> 
> I'm afriad that's our business, not yours.  Fact is, a lot of shareware
> programmers *do* release freeware.   But that really has to be our
> decision, not  to be dictated at the whim at someone who seems to glory in
> his petty larceny.
> 
> Dan Parvaz.

I cannot resist the urge to jump in here after following this post for 
awhile.

One caveat: I don't and never will program.

I've always thought that the market determines the price for a product. If no 
one pays for shareware, be it crippled or other, then the price is not right, 
or the complexity of paying too difficult. If no one pays for Mah Jong, then 
that's because no one thought it was worth the money. If they REALLY wanted 
to pay, they could drop quarters in an arcade.

Not paying for shareware is not larceny. The cost of using that shareware is 
the cost of time in dealing with the crippling and pop-up reminders. That's 
the consumers choice. That's the peril of shareware.

I'd like to know if crippled shareware is more profitable than freeware with 
an asked for donation. Anyone?

I'd also like to point out that some of the best "shareware" stuff I've seen 
are hacks and cracks.

And, finally, I think that the real people who proit from shareware are those 
who pay the authors next-to-nothing for putting the stuff on CD-ROM's in 
gobs, and then charge a fortune via mail-order. That's a classic case of the 
middleman defeating the origins of the shareware concept.

Sigh. I like much of the shareware I see. But the ONLY time I sent ayone any 
money.......it was returned due to change of address.

Them's my opinions and experiences.