DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => Living Room => Topic started by: zridling on May 22, 2007, 05:29 PM
-
Interesting discussion over at Download Squad (http://www.downloadsquad.com/) regarding the question: Why don't you pay for software? (http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/05/22/why-dont-you-pay-for-software/)
We're talking to those of you who download that great piece of donationware that beats the pants off the $40 alternative, but still don't even drop so much as $1 in the PayPal tip jar. We wanted to pop this question because we're seeing better and better software coming from open source, donationware and shareware developers, and yet many of them are still having a hard time making a living doing something they love, which is creating the products we obviously appreciate.
Read the full post, and then check out the comments. I'm glad to see someone using the term donationware!
-
Doesn't sound too promising for donationware authors.
-
Oh cripes... here (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=8146.0) we go again! Suffice it to say, I don't see a dislike for MS business model to be suffiicent excuse for continuing to use their products without paying for them. WTF? One poster goes on about how he relishes in pirating their stuff because he doesn't like their attitude, which he summarizes as:
I do NOT pay for Microsoft products and a quick poll shows that neither do my friends or family. Should Baller resign and the company policy does a reversal from "*uck the user, who cares if it works" to one of sincere quality and user accommodation, I will reconsider my pirating ways.
If the software is so bad, why are you using it, pirated or otherwise?! Post hoc rationalizing if you ask me... oh, you didn't? Too bad...
-
i like using pirated software because i like johnny depp.
-
i don't pay for software because i don't have to
no windows on any of my computers ;-)
-
If you become a linux software developer does your body learn to convert air to food?
-
If you become a linux software developer does your body learn to convert air to food?
-Grorgy
no.
it doesn't have to...
stupid ignorant prejudices...
-
There are no linux developers, so they don't have to worry about earning a living. Don't you know that all linux software is free and comes from magical software fairies? Don't pay any attention to the PayPal button on the website. It's just there to hold the website together. It's magical. If you remove it, the whole site falls apart.</sarcasm>
-
Well.. even on a forum like this where I wouldn't know how to make it easier to reward a developer, can you honestly live off the donations from people? I hope people could, but I can't imagine 1 person per hour donating..
-
I don't usually pay for software because there are too many frere/open-source programs that do exactly (and sometimes more) then the commercial alternatives. This comes to mind, mostly with graphic programs and VB.NET components for GUIs (I develop free software).
dhuser
-
There are 3 different kinds of software-developers.
No.1 creates software for their own needs or to gather experience with programming special things. Often they make programs to show possible clients what they are able to do - especially if they don´t have a higher education. Sometimes a few of them only code for fun - this changes after leaving school/university. You cannot live from fun alone. The amount of "newbies" & funcoders is high enough to seem like software is made on-the-fly for free. The most of them are showing to the Linux-World and community and say: "Hey, it´s all secure and for free!" but if you take a look at the creators of this idea - you´ll nowadays find them sitting in firms doing a normal job, earning money for their families and have no time for creating more "free" software.
No.2 creates software they think others could possibly use for their needs/hobbies and they develop for a market that hopefully exists and has enough money and honesty to pay for what they use. They don´t know how many will use their program and how much they will earn. After development they offer their product in many different ways (distributor, shareware, donationware or anything else) and pray that they´ve done all right and will have success.
No.3 creates software only if the need for it exists from a client that wants to have it to be better than their rivals and someone signs a contract with all it should be able to do for their personal needs, including the time and money for development and further support in creating new features or make the software work with others´ changing software and processes. They cannot rely on perhaps not regularly earning money for their invested time and money.
Sooner or later you´ll have to jump from 1 to 2 or 3 if you don´t have another profitable job and perhaps a very understandingly partner that helps you living your hobby.
People that only use free software stop honest developers from doing their job and the rich world of a bright palette of software is shrinking more and more and in some special cases the development stops. Do you think the hardware and software would have the actual state and speed if all would have used "free" software?
As a teenager I never bought an original game (only 2 or 3 I think), no tools and all had been copied illegal - only hardware had to be bought honestly. That changed after I left school and started a career within the software industry. I understood how life works and from this moment, I stopped all illegal actions and today have 99,9% originals I payed and registered as a normal customer.
I had a lot of contacts to game-developers, crackers and swappers all over the world and now - 20 years later - I see that nearly all changed to legality - some of them joined the software industry they fighted against with cracking their copy-protections - others couldn´t and stopped most computer activities. Only very few continued their former illegal hobby. Why? Because they understood what they´ve done and they wanted to adjust former faults somehow or only want to use their gained knowledge to make things better and live from their technical skills.
Pupils or student´s often don´t think too much about the money until they need it regularly. Therefore the most of them are working in No.1.
The computer world is working as any other markets - only with the problem that you can use it without asking using cracks or other tricks. Could you eat something looking in the eyes of the person that produced it being kicked out of his house with his whole family, because all (including you) have stolen their food that growed only from hard investments of work and money from the fields? Wouldn´t you be disappointed if you´d lose your job because someone has stolen your products? Wouldn´t you be angry if the money you earned very hard during years or decades will be stolen from your account?
Even if you use free software it´s like buying all products from the cheapest producer. How would the world look like if all people would only use products that costs nothing or are the cheapest they could get? If all would be bought from the chinese market where some people work for 10 ct per hour you´ll all lose your jobs and comfort. I think free software is ok in a healthy amount but not only insisting on it only for personal convictions against the behaviour of some big companies. It should be used as a concurrent against commercial products pushing them alive to develop further features, as insurancy against monopolistic intentions or as a start into the computer-world without having enough money to afford commercial products.
If you wouln´t make money floating around and no investments would be done the majority of mankind would be in a very poor state today. Don´t look only at yourself - take a wider look at the community of your town, country, continent or the world - only then you will understand all consequences of each little decision and act you make.
I see some frontiers what is good for you and others and what isn´t. The frontiers are only very fluently und unsharp to see.
If you don´t pay for good software that deserves it and you often use - you slowly kill development of great software and sometimes whole families! Think about it until other kill yours!
Something have to change in your head so that you can clearly see what´s happening around you and how the world is working. Perhaps then you start paying for software you are using and don´t insist only in using free software.
Besides: Open Source software is not in every case good as this week showed QEmu that has been infected with a keylogger. I don´t want to know how many "free" and "open" things are infected with spyware, controlling software and keylogs that have never been recognized and used in a very intensive way in high security domains that have very explosive datas about you, companies or military.
-
I don't usually pay for software because there are too many frere/open-source programs that do exactly (and sometimes more) then the commercial alternatives. This comes to mind, mostly with graphic programs and VB.NET components for GUIs (I develop free software).
dhuser
-dhuser
Crush's points aside (which I read with interest and can see where he's coming from), dhuser's argument about using freeeware/open source is valid.
Regarding my earlier post and the quote that I made in it, I can even respect, even if I don't agree with, an argument about ripping off Microsoft or Adobe because their stuff is too expensive. However, stating that you rip a company off because their products suck is ridiculous! How many car thieves target rusted and clapped out non-exotic cars?
-
I don't pay for software because I can't afford it, and I would have to get a job, but to get a job I would have to get a car, but to get a car I would have to get a job...so I can't get a job.
-
I guess the hole situation is a matter of being aware and care - or not - of the consequenses of your actions. And as more and more people becomes psychopaths, I imagine the problem will just grow and grow. As for the young people; I think they don't think... Remembering my own youth, I really think I too acted like a psycho. Being aware AND care about the consequesense of your actions may be how to spot if you a mature person. I know this to be the Christian attitude: If you wanna call yourself a mature Christian, then you do care!
-
Speaking of.. :-[
- just realized I never donated Irfan, so I rushed to his site and clicked the donate €10 (http://www.irfanview.net/main_support_engl.htm) button
:D
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ] ;)
-
I "buy" donationware as well as Windows, the graphics programs of my choice, etc. I also use freebies. Sort of an "I gotta be me" kinda thing.
-
I bought Microsoft when I bought my computer. It was provided with Compaq. However, today, my disposable income is less than $5 / month. Once I pay for my rent, I don't even see the pension cheque.
Everybody cry for me. I eat well.
-
Depends on if I have any money to spare, and if I really love the software provided.
-
I don't usually pay for software because there are too many frere/open-source programs that do exactly (and sometimes more) then the commercial alternatives. This comes to mind, mostly with graphic programs and VB.NET components for GUIs (I develop free software).
dhuser
-dhuser
Crush's points aside (which I read with interest and can see where he's coming from), dhuser's argument about using freeeware/open source is valid.
Regarding my earlier post and the quote that I made in it, I can even respect, even if I don't agree with, an argument about ripping off Microsoft or Adobe because their stuff is too expensive. However, stating that you rip a company off because their products suck is ridiculous! How many car thieves target rusted and clapped out non-exotic cars?
-Darwin
This is where I differ: Just because a company's products are too expensive, I don't feel I have any right whatsoever to steal the product. If I did feel that way about, say, Chevrolet, I wouldn't think to steal a Chevy to "get back" at them!
I either pay up and grumble like everyone else, or I make do with alternative applications. But I won't steal them.
Jim
-
I think many people miss the fact that there are those out there who live off the money from software, and the functionality of the software does enrich the computing experience, making the time spent developing it worth money.
Personally, to me it's all about the pricing of software in relation to the value, especially when the software is from an individual or small firm. An example is the special this month. There were specials on different software: ED for windows, SynchronizeIT and ZuluPadPro were the ones I was interested in. After comparing ED to windows to my other alternative, even at the discounted price, I paid more for the editor I wanted. Because in the end, the time it saved me was worth the increas in price. SynchronizeIT I gladly used the discount for. I thought at the regular price it was overpriced for how much use I would get out of it, but at the discounted price, I could afford to pay for the minimal use I'd get out of it. ZuluPadPro I paid full price for. Why? Because the original price wasn't *that* much, and for the functionality, it was worth it.
I guess in the end it comes down to three questions.
- What is your software worth to you?
- How much time does it save?
- If it wasn't available because the developer couldn't afford to make it, how much would that hurt your productivity?
-
As every good Pastafarian know, pirates are "absolute divine beings" and the original Pastafarians.
It's also very well known the direct connection between the global temperature increase on the planet, and the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s.
Wikipedia explain it well: Flying Spaghetti Monster - Pirates and global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster#Pirates_and_global_warming)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/FSM_logo2.svg/250px-FSM_logo2.svg.png)
RAmen.
:D
-
Regarding my earlier post and the quote that I made in it, I can even respect, even if I don't agree with, an argument about ripping off Microsoft or Adobe because their stuff is too expensive. However, stating that you rip a company off because their products suck is ridiculous! How many car thieves target rusted and clapped out non-exotic cars?
This is where I differ: Just because a company's products are too expensive, I don't feel I have any right whatsoever to steal the product. If I did feel that way about, say, Chevrolet, I wouldn't think to steal a Chevy to "get back" at them!
I either pay up and grumble like everyone else, or I make do with alternative applications. But I won't steal them.
Jim
I've highlighted a key word or two in my original quote: you and I, as far as I can tell, aren't as far apart as you apparently think! I guess my choice of the word "respect" was unfortunate... Equally unfortunate is that I can't think of a better one right now. I was trying to say that if one is going to make a case for stealing, surely they could come with something better than "the product sucks, so it's ok to steal it". At least saying the you steal because you find the price more than you can bear is... stumped again, but how about: understandable?
-
Utility gained not in proportion to price charged.
For instance, just purchased via download, a copy of CopyToDVD to use with new DVD burner but only because the software was discounted 50%.
-
...
I guess in the end it comes down to three questions.
- What is your software worth to you?
- How much time does it save?
- If it wasn't available because the developer couldn't afford to make it, how much would that hurt your productivity?
-wraith808
I like to think if microsoft charged $100 for Vista, more people would think it was worth it and not try to steal. I don't pirate, but I also don't like making the richest man in the world - richer! :mad:
.
-
I do pay for the software I use. If a package is too expensive then I just don't use it. Often, there is another program with essentially the same functionality that costs far less and I'll use it instead.
On the other hand, I have bought or donated to programs that I neither need nor use but I support them anyway because I think the idea or motive behind them is worthy of support. For example, I don't need another programming language but I bought Phrogram (formerly Kids Programming Language) anyway. Why? Because it is such a great and well executed idea to get kids interested in programming that I wanted to support it!
And when I find an item on donationcoder.com that I find particularly useful I intend to donate to it too! :)
-
I've highlighted a key word or two in my original quote: you and I, as far as I can tell, aren't as far apart as you apparently think! I guess my choice of the word "respect" was unfortunate... Equally unfortunate is that I can't think of a better one right now. I was trying to say that if one is going to make a case for stealing, surely they could come with something better than "the product sucks, so it's ok to steal it". At least saying the you steal because you find the price more than you can bear is... stumped again, but how about: understandable?
-Darwin
You're right; looking at it, I think I must have misunderstood your post. I had just read through all the posts up to that point and replied to yours as the last one I read. Sorry if I sounded as if I was aiming it at you! Though I think I had thought you were trying to justify -- to an extent, even if only a mild extent -- the appropriateness of stealing software based solely on its cost. Sorry! Didn't mean to "preach" at you, Darwin!
-
I am pretty certain I am 100% legal with the software on my computers, even though I have had 2 periods of 1 year in the past 6 years where I had very little income. I found freeware, cheap shareware, didn't upgrade windows and other software etc.
I even pay multiple times if I want something on 2 machines and the license says I have to - although when testing software I might try another product that says I can install on my laptop and desktop first. (I really do test software often in an order based on price and license terms and try until i find one that suits my needs)
If a program is too expensive for what I can justify to myself for the project in question, I search for an alternative. I use photoimpact, for example, as I can't see why I would pay for photoshop etc. (note that I am not a professional designer. if i were i probably would have to buy photoshop and bite the bullet)
Sometimes I search for and buy an old version - i bought acdsee 6 from amazon as the old version did the bit I needed (the nice near automated workflow for scanning in and tagging hundreds of negatives) and was a lot cheaper. (Version 9 is much improved, but not the part which i really needed at the time, and I could only justify paying that smaller amount anyway)
And I do donate, either within about 2 months if I use the program a lot, or much later if I use the program only occasionally. Sometimes I pay for or donate for something I don't even use much, because i think it's a great idea and needs supporting... (same things for games or websites)
* * *
The reason most people don't pay? Because they can get away with it. It is, in the end, pure greed.
-
No one should make money off software. Work at mc donalds and code / contribute to projects in your spare time. (or use a donationware model, don't FORCE payment and ownership) it is a BASIC right to copy/modify/run software as you wish, because software is NOT property, software = ideas and creativity, and limiting ideas and creativity with ownership is always a bad idea. That is the ethical truth.
The practical truth is, that sometimes it's nice to get paid for what you like to do (and if you don't like to do it, you shouldn't be doing it). But that doesn't make it ethically correct. I'm sorry but I just don't believe in ownership of software.
More on topic: Paying for software should be done out of sympathy, goodwill, brotherhood with the developer, not because you have to, just to have the 'privilege' to use the software.
:two:
/me ducks and hides
-
I like to support independent and small developers.
I like to support friendly, helpful developers.
I look for freeware, but I have two requirements.
1- Can't look like it is being polished before the change to shareware.
2- Has to be the equivalent or better of paid software.
I just replaced ReGet with Orbit Downloader. Quite happy with it and met my requirements.
It is one of the few that have unfortunately. Most free/open source apps just don't have the fit and finish, and way too many are the personal creation of the developer. They work how that person wanted to meet that person's needs. Nice if we both agree and have the same needs, but usually we don't. I'm also worried about 'abandonware'. Sourceforge is littered with dead projects. One you leave university and get married I guess it is harder to devote yourself to whiny leeches!
I look for, and ask for discounts if I am paying. I live in China and work as a teacher. Many of you likely have a large beer budget than I have salary. I don't bother looking at software that costs a month's pay. Not gonna buy at that price no matter what.
My sole exception? Various versions of Windows. Why? It has the tools, software, and hardware support I want. It broadens my scope when looking for an application or for hardware. About every three months for the past few years I have installed this or that flavor of linux and tried doing what I normally do, listen to music (Wavpack and FLAC), watch a few videos, play the occasional game, create lessons and lesson plans, edit and view pictures, create panoramas from images. I always end up restoring my Windows partition within a week. The apps aren't there and those I do find are limited in some way and/or do not have all the functions as their Windows competitors.
Have I ever done an 'extended' test of some software package? Yeah, sure. But I have always scraped up the money to buy whatever I keep on my system. If it is worth the disk space and I use it then I should pay for it. Just not always on the developers schedule. Is it right? No, it is expedient. Can I be 'a little pregnant'? Nope, guess not. But my rationale is not that Bill Gates has too much money or that the world somehow owes me . I simply have to save up to pay for anything that costs more than about US$30, and even then I have a wife to explain it to... Meantime, I'm selfish, I want to use the program while I wait to pay.
So, I think if you can buy a computer and you can pay for an internet connection, then you can somehow pay for the apps you use. Especially if the app comes from an individual or a small development house.
-
I've highlighted a key word or two in my original quote: you and I, as far as I can tell, aren't as far apart as you apparently think! I guess my choice of the word "respect" was unfortunate... Equally unfortunate is that I can't think of a better one right now. I was trying to say that if one is going to make a case for stealing, surely they could come with something better than "the product sucks, so it's ok to steal it". At least saying the you steal because you find the price more than you can bear is... stumped again, but how about: understandable?
-Darwin
You're right; looking at it, I think I must have misunderstood your post. I had just read through all the posts up to that point and replied to yours as the last one I read. Sorry if I sounded as if I was aiming it at you! Though I think I had thought you were trying to justify -- to an extent, even if only a mild extent -- the appropriateness of stealing software based solely on its cost. Sorry! Didn't mean to "preach" at you, Darwin!
-J-Mac
No worries! As I noted, my choice of words wasn't very precise... Still can't think of a better word, either. Embarrassing.
-
No one should make money off software. Work at mc donalds and code / contribute to projects in your spare time. (or use a donationware model, don't FORCE payment and ownership) it is a BASIC right to copy/modify/run software as you wish, because software is NOT property, software = ideas and creativity, and limiting ideas and creativity with ownership is always a bad idea. That is the ethical truth.
The practical truth is, that sometimes it's nice to get paid for what you like to do (and if you don't like to do it, you shouldn't be doing it). But that doesn't make it ethically correct. I'm sorry but I just don't believe in ownership of software.
More on topic: Paying for software should be done out of sympathy, goodwill, brotherhood with the developer, not because you have to, just to have the 'privilege' to use the software.
-Gothi[c]
In your opinion. There is nothing "ethical" about not charging for software, just as there is nothing "ethical" about not charging for ideas. It's my right to do as I want with the ideas I come up with. And if I'm not getting paid, then I'll move on to something I am getting paid for, in regards to things that don't interest me. This moral high horse about all software should be free is laughable. Is my time worth nothing? Is my effort worth nothing? You're paying for a license to use the software, just as you pay for a license to use a book, or anything else that doesn't have a tangible part. You have no *right* to anything that *I* create. For you to force your idea of "ethics" on someone else using the guild trip argument is no different than someone who says that your idealogical stance is incorrect because they have a different one.
And what do you do for a living?
-
I like to think if microsoft charged $100 for Vista, more people would think it was worth it and not try to steal. I don't pirate, but I also don't like making the richest man in the world - richer! :mad:
-Padlock6
So... just because someone is the richest man in the world, he has no right to make more money? It just seems that a lot of people have a funny attitude towards someone that is a success. And once their contemporaries become successes, they accuse them of selling out- but that position is, in most cases, envy, because when they have an idea or business that succeeds, they don't limit themselves in how much money or proceeds they get from their venture.
-
it is a BASIC right to copy/modify/run software as you wish, because software is NOT property, software = ideas and creativity, and limiting ideas and creativity with ownership is always a bad idea. That is the ethical truth.
Paying for software should be done out of sympathy, goodwill, brotherhood with the developer, not because you have to, just to have the 'privilege' to use the software.
-Gothi[c]
Sorry, but your basic premise is not correct. Software is not just the idea, it is also the work and talent to make that idea work. Talent should always be rewarded. Paying people for the software that results from ideas and creativity does not stifle that creativity, working at mcDonalds does.
-
it is a BASIC right to copy/modify/run software as you wish, because software is NOT property, software = ideas and creativity, and limiting ideas and creativity with ownership is always a bad idea. That is the ethical truth.
Paying for software should be done out of sympathy, goodwill, brotherhood with the developer, not because you have to, just to have the 'privilege' to use the software.
-Gothi[c]
Sorry, but your basic premise is not correct. Software is not just the idea, it is also the work and talent to make that idea work. Talent should always be rewarded. Paying people for the software that results from ideas and creativity does not stifle that creativity, working at mcDonalds does.-thomthowolf
Nicely said thomthowolf.
-
The reward is/shoud be the joy of working on the software, and sharing it with people.
The argument of 'greed' on the users part can very easily be reversed to the developer side as well.
That's the last i'm going to say about it.
-
The reward is/shoud be the joy of working on the software, and sharing it with people.
With that rationale, all programmers would have to be hobbyists or independently wealthy.
-
In the end, all forms of mercantile transaction is based on ideas. There was some idea that created whatever asset is being traded. If there were no rewards for ideas, then pretty soon the people who were making the more banal items would find that they had no basis for new goods.
-
With that rationale, all programmers would have to be hobbyists or independently wealthy.
-mrainey
That sounds about right. Either 'hobbyist' programmers or educational researchers, or actually (barely) making it on donations. Ethically, I think that is the only valid option.
Practically, since corporate control is here and isn't going anywhere soon, it is -ok- as long as users have a choice between payware and a free(not must in monetary value, but also having the freedom to copy/alter,...) alternative. And sometimes you can't just barely make it on donations, and you have to look for alternatives, then you can either work for a company that you know doesn't sell to end users but other corperations or is a governement contractor, then at least you're only feeding the beast that feeds the beast. But that doesn't make payware morally less wrong in my book.
I'm not saying there should be no reward for the effort, i'm saying giving the reward shouldn't be ENFORCED upon the user.
Yes,- this sounds naive and counts on the goodwill of people, but if you want people to be nicer in the world, you might as wel BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE.
Anyway, this is completely off topic, and I think i'm going to stfu about it :)
about the article:
From the replies, I think one can tell that the majority of the people that don't pay for payware software are young people or people with not enough monetary assets to invest in software. Businesses have to buy their software, and people who have the money, tend to spend it too. I'm not saying there isn't any piracy in businesses and i'm not saying people with money don't pirate, but these don't account for the majority of the figures.
-
But applying that rationale to not buying software is like saying you're not voting because you don't agree with the political system?
-
i'm saying giving the reward shouldn't be ENFORCED upon the user.
I know from experience, the vast majority of users will not voluntarily contribute anything in the way of financial support. The programmer spends hundreds of hours creating something, the user is quite happy to get full benefit in exchange for a couple of mouse clicks to download and install.
Who's the greedy one?
-
I'm not saying there should be no reward for the effort, i'm saying giving the reward shouldn't be ENFORCED upon the user.
-Gothi[c]
But that's just it. It's not forced on you. Just as the developer chooses to spend his time making software for whatever rationale, then chooses to price it at what he thinks the price should be, the user has a choice of paying what the developer chooses to charge, or not use the software.
I made a nice little piece of software one time, just for me, but decided to make it available to the public. I spent the money on bandwidth for them to download it (this was before these freeware sites became prevalent) and didn't put any controls on the software. All I asked was that people who downloaded the software send me a short e-mail saying what they liked or didn't like about it... or even just their location if they wanted to. I just wanted to get some feedback and metrics.
Do you know how many e-mails I received over 6 years of hosting it? 3. Believe me, that was a *lot* less than the number of downloads. It's not just naive to depend upon the good will of users to support you in what you work at for a living, it's also IMO fiscally irresponsible, for most people, given a choice, will *not* donate. And that's just the plain facts.
-
The question was "Why don't you pay for software?"
That question in and of itself doesn't imply that one uses pirated software.
I interpreted that question to mean "Why would you use freeware? And why would you choose not to support the software you use?"
I love small single purpose tools. I don't like opening a swiss army knife and hunting for just the tool I need, or worse yet, having to have multiple swiss army knives with duplication of tools just to make sure I have everything I need.
Most of these single purpose tools that I use are freeware. In the cases where there is an option to choose either a freeware application or a payware application for the same purpose, I will usually go for the freeware one as long as it does its job well and it's stable.
I do try to support the software I love, but I can't always afford to do that. :(
This question, to me, would be very similar to asking "Why do you eat at home instead of a restaurant?" or "Why do you shop in discount stores instead of the big department stores?" "Why would you buy used items instead of new?" "Why do you keep using something old and outdated instead of replacing it with new?" or "Why would you continue to use the older version of a program rather than paying again and upgrading it?"
And I guess the real answer to all those questions would have to be this:
I am frugal, sometimes to the point where it can be considered a fault....or an art form. :-[
Don't misunderstand. I am not stingy, not by far. I am quite generous when I have something I can be generous with.
If I could pay for software with pizza, I think there would be a lot more really fat programmers in this world. ;D
I could bake cookies for the developers and mail them, but it would make more sense to me to send them the money I would have spent on postage by paypal and just skip the baking. And most of the time I can't even afford the postage.
I can afford email, though...and encouraging words, and I know how much they are worth. Their value is more than the average person thinks. ;)
-
I'm not saying there should be no reward for the effort, i'm saying giving the reward shouldn't be ENFORCED upon the user.
Yes,- this sounds naive and counts on the goodwill of people, but if you want people to be nicer in the world, you might as wel BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE. -Gothi[c]
I am not sure whether Gothi[c] is serious or just trolling for response.
If you are serious does this philosophy apply to all intellectual pursuits? If not then why not? If it does then how does any business model work when nobody can earn a living at anything?
Example: A designer designs a car, another designer designs a production line to produce it, engineers design the machine to run the production line and the processing plant to produce the raw materials, a mining engineer designs a method for extracting ore to supply the production process. All of these people are producing intellectual ideas just a programmers do - should none of these people get paid for their work - or is it all done for love and they work in MacDonalds to support their 'hobby'?
Just because software is an intangible product that you can't hold in your hand doesn't mean it requires any less work than the factory worker who bolts the parts together to build a car. Would you suggest that a factory worker should work for love of it? Why should people who work in MacDonalds be paid? They don't produce anything tangible either!
-
... All I asked was that people who downloaded the software send me a short e-mail saying what they liked or didn't like about it... or even just their location if they wanted to. I just wanted to get some feedback and metrics. -wraith808
I can afford email, though...and encouraging words, and I know how much they are worth. Their value is more than the average person thinks. ;) -app103
Thanks for telling this! I would often look at that feedback button and think Why should I take their time telling what they already know? / or whatever reason kept me from responding.
Now I will write every small-app's author :D
-
If you are serious does this philosophy apply to all intellectual pursuits?
-Carol Haynes
yes
If it does then how does any business model work when nobody can earn a living at anything?
Noone should 'earn a living'. Living is our birth right, it doesn't need to be earned. The way the world works now, the system is completely defunctional and wrong. I'm not saying anyone has come up with a better one yet (someone may or may not have), but that doesn't make it less wrong. Now we just have legalized slavery. If you don't work in whatever field that brings in money, you can't survive.
Example: A designer designs a car, another designer designs a production line to produce it, engineers design the machine to run the production line and the processing plant to produce the raw materials, a mining engineer designs a method for extracting ore to supply the production process. All of these people are producing intellectual ideas just a programmers do - should none of these people get paid for their work - or is it all done for love and they work in MacDonalds to support their 'hobby'?
The designer of the car's production should optionally donate to the designer if he can, the miners should donate to the mining engineer if they can for making their job easyer, etc,... "if they can" being the keyphrase.
Would you suggest that a factory worker should work for love of it?
Ideally, yes. He shouldn't be forced to do so otherwise. For money or no money.
But this is completely off topic, I just wanted to throw in my :two: because the crowd was weighing in only one direction, and there are plenty of other viewpoints out there, mine is just one of them. And it's probably not perfect, I'm no where near claiming to have all the answers, but I do have a sense of right and wrong. And people not being able to get goods because they don't have the money is wrong, and people having to work to be able to live is wrong. Money is probably just wrong all together, since it's only led to greed, wars, suffering, and destruction.
-
I _DO_ pay for software. I have enormous respect for the intellectual abilities of truly gifted developers. I often choose to give away my own intellectual/professional work product, but I don't necessarily hold others to a same standard. I am not, after all, the template for humanity.... I earn enough as vice president of a church-related college prep school that I can share what I have and live on what is left. I even donate generously to torrent sites and then purchase licenses to what I truly want and use. So, why don't _YOU_ pay for software....
-
I don't have a lot of extra money, and when I can find programs that are free and do the job, I use them. Open source is often better as well.
-
Totally for-what-it’s-worth, hoping to *add a perspective or 3* for those trying to understand – not debate – using & paying (or not) for software.
Guess you could say I’m an ol’ fart, using a teletype machine in my first college programming course. I’ve had money at times, yet still remember having to steal a jar of peanut butter to feed the kids when times were very hard. When I had the money I paid exorbitant amounts for hard and software, like $1100 laser printers (without toner mind you), and $700 suites from Aldus & later Macromedia. I also feel that I threw easily thousands of dollars away over the years, buying products that didn’t even begin to live up to the publisher’s claims. For a little more than a decade I’ve been disabled due to illness, hoping for at least a partial remission so I can do some sort of paying work – my best hope is with a PC as it’s doubtful I’ll ever physically be able to return to anything like my former career (this illness has taken it’s toll). Now with that out of the way as some sort of background...
It seems apt to apply the saying (paraphrased): “Give a man a fish & he’ll have a meal – Teach a man to fish and he’ll not go hungry”. I can easily identify with folks around the world who might learn to support themselves given the use of necessary software to learn with/on. They don’t contribute to anyone’s profit loss, unless they get greedy after they *learn to fish*.
I can all too readily identify with those who will not buy software before an actual, full-featured trial – I’m one of them, having been burned far too many times to think that any breach of ethics only goes one way – dishonesty is not something that only applies to users and not sellers!
And on the subject of ethics, it’s universally assumed that computer users are of questionable character to the point that nothing on a disc (or downloaded) can be returned, while shoplifting is epidemic among customers of all incomes, & the same stores who won’t accept an opened software box, issue refunds all day long for used clothes, appliances, drapery, even bottles of detergent filled with water! You can return the empty boxes from $30 worth of food for a refund, but not the complete, but open package containing $20 worth of software!
Yes there are several other rationales people use, often vigorously, but those are the behind the scene issues I think that have some sort of legitimacy, and coincidentally are the ones I’ve rarely if ever heard voiced by anyone selling software. Indeed, I think that some developers tend to beat the piracy issue to great extent by nurturing the respect of users – mpucoder comes to mind, though I could of course be very wrong, never having asked him if it is a problem. Otherwise most users in my opinion are only too happy to engage in some us vs them justification. I know coders have to eat, but other than the forums here, where are most people going to meet one? You’re just some abstract entity working all hours on caffeine and pizza.
That said – & I apologize going overlong – I have heard of software donations in some cases amounting to a tidy sum. I don’t know if that’s true or not, & so I can’t begin to hint at what steps anyone should take to make some cash. While this thread is cool to generate responses, I’d hope that if someone’s kids having a new pair of shoes depends on donations, they’d have contacted every coder out there soliciting them, finding out what works and what doesn’t.
Thanks
mike
-
Welcome, mikiem, and thanks for your great post, insights and story!
You bring up some good points and some typical issues.
-
I haven't got any easy way of paying for software on the net, so, if I can't get it free, I can't get it at all. Therefore I am not lessening anyone's income by using free/pirate software.
When I get rich I will return the favor to those who gave me the free software. To those which were pirated, well, if they want to act like a business, then I will too: they get paid if I need their software for commercial reasons but thats all.
-
I know coders have to eat, but other than the forums here, where are most people going to meet one? You’re just some abstract entity working all hours on caffeine and pizza.
-mikiem
This is actually a very interesting point. Though times are changing, it is still all too common that when someone asks me what I do, and I say that I'm a software developer, or even a computer programmer or coder, they say "huh? so what is it you do then?"
People *are* pretty divorced from the process that creates the software that they consume, and its become not just some sort of black box, but more akin to storks bringing babies or babies appearing in cabbage patches- they just don't know, don't care, and have the notion that it's *just there*. I don't really know how to combat this, or to cause the layperson to realize that software *does* have value, which I think is one of the reason that the average person *is* so ready to engage in casual piracy if someone offers them a 'copy' of the software.
-
Doing what is right is not just a matter of social intelligence. There is more to it. From Adam's time and until Judgement Day there were and will always be people attracted to evil, seing good as bad and bad as good. I mean; they crucified Jesus, didn't they. What can you expect? Some will think software pirates are heroes. [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ] (http://www.niksaver.com/niksaver_crack_keygen_serial.html)
-
I'm the only one thinking that "pirate" is a such too strong word for what we are talking here?
I mean, it seems that the criminal connotations of the word (that may refer to murdering, raping, etc.) are a bit disproportionated...
-
"pirate" is a such too strong word for what we are talking here
Are "thief" or "parasite" more acceptable?
-
I would say that "unauthorized duplication/usage" is better than "piracy".
BTW, just to clear things up, I live working as a programmer.
-
It's just a term... some people do say unauthorized duplication/usage. But pirate is a bit more catchy than unauthorized duplicator ;)
-
Yes, I think that the BSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance) like it more that way! :)
-
I don't think most people associate pirates with the extreme negative connotations you bring up. I mean, look at the top movie of the Memorial Day weekend... is it Coders of the Carribean? I think not... LOL
-
Personally I don,t pay simply because pensions do not stretch to such indulginces. I pay only for what I consider necessary, ie, security etc. :D
-
The question was "Why don't you pay for software?"
That question in and of itself doesn't imply that one uses pirated software.
I interpreted that question to mean "Why would you use freeware? And why would you choose not to support the software you use?"-app103
This is a valid point. However, check out the quote from the introduction to the original discussion (http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/05/22/why-dont-you-pay-for-software/) at Download Squad (http://www.downloadsquad.com/):
This is a post for the crack 'torrenters, the chronic non-donators and the I'll-stick-with-the- free - alternative'ers in the crowd: we want to hear your thoughts on why you don't pay for software.
It seems that the intent of the original thread, at least in part, was to address the issue of people using either donationware or shareware apps ("crack 'torrenters") without actually paying for them. So, piracy was included in the scope of the original discussion.
I agree, though, that we got into a bit of a rut and have focused almost exclusively on piracy. The use of donationware, e-mail-ware, postcardware, or other types of software that use alternative forms of licensing without actually honouring the end-user's part of the bargain (donation, postcard, etc.) seems to be a major problem as well. I mean, given that most software is downloaded now, how difficult is it to write an e-mail to thank a developer for their time and effort and for making the result of that time and effort available to you for download? Not saying I'm saying I'm perfect... In fact, thank you for making me think about this as I've a bunch of e-mail/postcards to write!
-
I use "free" software, however, I do make donations to "free" software that I find to be useful enough to use often.
I have tried many "free" programs and later discarded them.
I have been tempted to "pirate" some programs, especially those that I have upgraded. I own every version of CorelDraw from 1 to 12 and haven't yet convinced myself to spring for X3 because they charge so much for just a few improvements, but, have so far resisted the temptation to "pirate".
I will, however, admit to "pirating" some programs before buying, just to see if they are as good as claimed. Most of these I have rejected, uninstalled and never purchased. Those that I decide are worth the money, I keep and purchase. Of course, if a good discount can be found on software that I like, I am greatly pleased.
I would estimate that I keep, continue to use and pay for or donate to about 5% of the programs that I try.
So, do I qualify as not paying for software?
-
I will, however, admit to "pirating" some programs before buying, just to see if they are as good as claimed. Most of these I have rejected, uninstalled and never purchased. Those that I decide are worth the money, I keep and purchase. Of course, if a good discount can be found on software that I like, I am greatly pleased.
I must confess to having done this in the past myself. I no longer do this as I've become somewhat (in my own mind?) more discerning about software and how to make use of a trial. I suppose I might be tempted to do this with an app that doesn't have a trial and for which there is no clear policy about a money back guarantee. Like you Dave, if I did this and liked the software, I'd buy a licence otherwise I'd uninstall and move on. Haven't faced that situation, yet, though.
-
I must say, it doesn't occur to me. If it doesn't have a demo, I look for another program.
-
When I did this in the past, it was to unlock those parts of a shareware app that were locked in a trial. I justified this in my mind because I was being asked to accept on faith that the features would work without being able to "try before I buy". I'd give the features a shot and then either buy or uninstall. I usually spent a lot more time finding the crack/hack/serial than I did trialling the feature(s)! In doing so, I exposed myself to all sorts of potential dangers - adware, spyware, malware, viruses - I don't have any desire to revisit those days.
Like you, iphigenie, I tend to look elsewhere when faced with a program without a trial. Part of becoming more "discerning" as I note above, is the realisation that there really are very, very few apps out there that are unique to the point that there isn't at leas one alternative. Thus I no longer feel any sense of urgency when faced with a tantalising app that I can't trial. For one thing, I can just peruse the forums at donationcoder and usually find postings about five or six alternatives, usually with detailed comments if not a mini-review. If an alternative isn't already mentioned here, I can just post and receive a range of suggestions!
-
I usually just indicate to the developer that I have nearly decided to purchase the software- the included features met my requirements. But I didn't want to buy it without seeing the other features. I've had four responses:
1. No response. So I don't get the software.
2. A 'No' response. So I don't get the software.
3. A 'sure' response- and unless the added features don't work, I always buy it.
4. A 'buy it and you can get a refund' response, in which case, I usually buy it and have (so far) never taken them up on the refund bit.
-
Excellent advice wraith808! Approaching the developer to request a demo is preferable to pirating their product. I've been down each of the four paths that you suggest since I gave up running pirated versions, I can tell you that following your advice *feels* a LOT better than running a crack/hack/bogus serial. Another insight that comes from experience. Thank you for sharing it.
-
If you are serious does this philosophy apply to all intellectual pursuits?
-Carol Haynes
yes
If it does then how does any business model work when nobody can earn a living at anything?
Noone should 'earn a living'. Living is our birth right, it doesn't need to be earned. The way the world works now, the system is completely defunctional and wrong. I'm not saying anyone has come up with a better one yet (someone may or may not have), but that doesn't make it less wrong. Now we just have legalized slavery. If you don't work in whatever field that brings in money, you can't survive.
Example: A designer designs a car, another designer designs a production line to produce it, engineers design the machine to run the production line and the processing plant to produce the raw materials, a mining engineer designs a method for extracting ore to supply the production process. All of these people are producing intellectual ideas just a programmers do - should none of these people get paid for their work - or is it all done for love and they work in MacDonalds to support their 'hobby'?
The designer of the car's production should optionally donate to the designer if he can, the miners should donate to the mining engineer if they can for making their job easyer, etc,... "if they can" being the keyphrase.
Would you suggest that a factory worker should work for love of it?
Ideally, yes. He shouldn't be forced to do so otherwise. For money or no money.
But this is completely off topic, I just wanted to throw in my :two: because the crowd was weighing in only one direction, and there are plenty of other viewpoints out there, mine is just one of them. And it's probably not perfect, I'm no where near claiming to have all the answers, but I do have a sense of right and wrong. And people not being able to get goods because they don't have the money is wrong, and people having to work to be able to live is wrong. Money is probably just wrong all together, since it's only led to greed, wars, suffering, and destruction.
-Gothi[c]
I agree with you, in fact that's my belief as well. But as we know from experiments in political systems (such as communism) no human will work soley for the benefit of all or just for the sake of doing what they want to do. Money always has to be involved somehow. I've always viewed mankind as a selfish greedy species only looking for their own individual survival. Which is why I chuckle whenever I hear news that we're stepping closer each day to destroying ourselves. Weapons, terrorists, etc..and our ever quickening pace in technological development. But alas, till that day of complete destruction we all live in the social constructs that we've built that is capitalism and money.
Anyway, that's just my viewpoint, and I'm a bit of a pestimistic when it comes to humanity. I actually don't mind donating money to freeware, and donationware authors. Though it irritates me to "donate" money to corporations and businesses. Probably because for the first group, money isn't expected. While for the second group, money is expected. And if it's one thing I do despise, it is money's control over everyone including myself as long as I live in this world.
-
Probably because for the first group, money isn't expected. While for the second group, money is expected. And if it's one thing I do despise, it is money's control over everyone including myself as long as I live in this world.
Also, the second group keeps threatening to litigate, litigate, litigate if you don't pay up! Kind of takes away any warm, fuzzy feeling that you might have about paying the piper!
-
Always remember, any company is only a group of people with more strictures, and more fiduciary duties/responsibilities- a company is *not* strictly an entity. Therefore, if you deal with the company as people (or in particular a person), then you're likely to get better results. I have taken the same stance with larger companies, and have received similar results. In fact, in one case, the salesperson from the company extended the trial on one product because near the end of the trial I started to evaluate another product they sold and wanted to buy them both at the same time.
-
Interesting wraith808. I've heard of similar stories with people dealing with major players (can't remember specifics but by big I mean Microsoft or Adobe level companies) and getting similar results. I've not experienced this myself but it makes sense. I've always found that the general Judeo-Christian ethic of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" holds true in any situation. More often than not, if you as the customer are polite, level-headed and appreciative of the efforts being made on the other end some sort of accomodation can be reached. People working for large companies often have a much greater degree of leeway to "deal" with customers than smaller concerns and often have an incentive, too, to meet quotas and keep both the customer and their management team happy!
Good advice wraith.
-
I'm new to donationcoder :up:, all the people must have some reward.
Money or a thank you for a great work (free software), and if everyone start to download
illegal copy's this will happens in a time frame of a year.
no upgrades and no new program's on the market.
-
When you reread the original question, it wonders why people don't contribute anything, even a dollar. Devs also love [real] bug reports, too, along with honest criticism and suggestions. But the tone of the original question is more like: You liked the food and the service; so why not leave a tip?
I've got no qualms of temporary pirating for evaluation purposes, but if you leave it on your HD, pay for it. As Michael Rainey and Darwin point out, the developer spent countless hours (often years!) on the software, so give back and pay it forward. Hell, even Plato wrote about honor among thieves in The Republic.
-
Actually, I don't have any problems paying for software I like and use. Many software authors create programs that become "donationware" because they put so much time and effort into maintaining and improving it. I enjoy donating to my favorite authors and buy their software when they take it shareware (Photofiltre Studio and JV 16 Power Tools, e.g.). Whenever possible, I pay for subscriptions to my favorite newsletters, or at least donate.
As to commercial software, I'm a little conservative. Photoshop CS, Dreamweaver 8, etc., have the flexibility and power I need and I don't mind paying for them. I use XP Pro SP2 on all my machines, and have no interest in Vista. I neither condemn nor support pirated software; if you need/use it, that's your choice.
Just my 2 pennies
OEF
-
commercial software fuels open source.. if commercial software didn't exist, who would every one blame?
other than that I pay for good software, nothing less. (most good software is free :D)