From: grahj@gagme.chi.il.us (jim graham)
Subject: Re: More on MODEDIT/crippleware
Originator: grahj@gagme
Reply-To: jim@n5ial.chi.il.us
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:58:35 GMT


NOTE:  I don't receive this group at home, and don't always read news
here before it expires on me --- if you're replying, and want to be sure
I see it, you might want to e-mail me a copy....  otherwise, I might not
see it at all.


first, and before I say anything else, just remember this:  when you
evaluate shareware, you evaluate it based on what you see in front of
you, not what some file claims you'll get if you pay the money.  if
what you see in front of you isn't what you need, or if it has bugs
(like failing to save work that you've done, etc.), then do what just
about everyone else does --- dump it from your disk and forget about it.

if it doesn't work, why pay for it?  do you honestly think it's going to
get any better?  are you willing to pay $$$ just to find out?  that more
or less defeats the whole idea of shareware, now doesn't it?  btw, these
comments are from a shareware user and author (so what? right?).


In article <1992Nov11.173617.13520@walter.bellcore.com>
tld@cosmos.bellcore.com writes:
>In article <BxJBG1.2tr@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, rjm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
>(Ryan Mitchell) writes:

>> [....]
>> but I feel that this popular practice of disabling features should be
>> stopped or not classified as shareware.

>    ... this is complete, utter *HOGWASH*.  By your standards, then,
>    ANY software that offers `enhanced functionality' for a few bucks
>    more is crippleware, whether or not it is *shareware* or commercial.
>    This is utter, complete BS, period.  By your def, Windows is cripple
>    ware since it doesn't come with the SDK, basic OS/2 is crippleware
>    since it doesn't offer the enhanced capabilities of OS/2 Extended
>    Edition; all DTP packages are crippleware since you pay $$ for 
>    additional features...

you're confusing issues here.  with the packages you mention above, you
actually do pay money for the package to begin with (or at least, you're
supposed to).  then, you have the option of buying still more utilities.
this isn't crippleware (although it can still be rather annoying).

with shareware, you test and evaluate a copy of what you're expected to
pay for if you want to keep and use it.  what you're paying for is the
registration of the software you've already got.  you already have a
fully functional program, you're just paying to register it.  if the
shareware distribution doesn't work as advertised, then the registered
version (the same program, except now you've paid for it) isn't going to
be any different (ok, you might see ``Registered to ... '' instead of
``Please register ... '' --- but that's not my point).

>    The point is:  What Norm is offering as `extended' or `enhanced'
>    features is *exactly* that:  Enhancements.  Enhancements that MOST
>    people will *never* use or need to use.

ok, so when you pay, you pay for the enhancements, not the basic
functionality of the program.  I suppose, then, that if you don't want
the enhancements, you're not expected to pay for the program, period?
good, that's nice to know.  I'll remember that one in the future.  :-)

of course, most SHAREWARE doesn't work this way --- in that case, you're
actually expected to pay for the code you download off of your local
BBS, ftp site, whatever.

btw, I can name at least 2 examples of cases where my sarcastic version
above is actually true --- there are a couple of really nice C libraries
that I use that work out just this way.  they are very specific about
***NOT*** calling themselves shareware.  if all you want is the small
model libraries, you don't have to pay a dime, and you're not expected
to.  if you want other memory models, source code, etc., then you have
to pay.  again, they were very quick to correct me when I once referred
to their libraries as shareware --- they corrected me by stating that
the small model libs are free, and the large model libs + source are
plain old commercial software.

but that wasn't what I'd gathered that the program that started this all
up is supposed to be.

>> I hope that "shareware" authors will understand the point that
>> I'm trying to make and do one of two things:  make their 
>    ...more BS deleted..

it wasn't BS.  if you're evaluating a piece of shareware, and it doesn't
do what it claims to do, it doesn't work (at least, not on your system).
why go any further?

>   Ryan - I think you need to get the point... Go back and *READ* Norm's
>   documentation, then follow the instructions!

some people may choose to just assume that things that don't work in the
shareware distribution just automatically get better when you pay for the
program --- IMHO, this isn't very smart.  what happens if you get the
registered version and it still doesn't work?  do you get a full refund?
how can you be SURE that things will just get better on their own?

the whole shareware concept is based on ``try before you buy'' --- this
means just what it says.  you try out the program to see if it meets your
needs before you pay anything for it.  if what you see in front of you
doesn't meet your needs, then paying for it isn't going to make a bit of
a difference, because you've already tested the program and found that it
doesn't work for you.

oh well, I've gone on long enough....I think you get my point, right?  :-)
   --jim

--
#include <std_disclaimer.h>                                 73 DE N5IAL (/9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET:  jim@n5ial.chi.il.us  |  grahj@gagme.chi.il.us  |  j.graham@ieee.org
ICBM:  41.70N 87.63W                    UUCP:  gagme!n5ial!jim@clout.chi.il.us
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@n9hsi (Chicago.IL.US.Earth)    AMTOR SELCAL:  NIAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard