Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Why is so much software cracked?
mouser:
cpilot -
i think you missed the entire point of javajones reply to my saying that, which i agree with.
no one said they should be forced to price things that way - we are simply suggesting that if they did that they might:
* make more money
* gain larger market share
* build a more loyal and happy user base
* do some good for the world
there are some difficulties of course, but perhaps not insurmountable ones. the use of tiered pricing *is* increasing it seems.. let's hope this trend continues.
JavaJones:
lol, sorry Cpilot your hackles are raised needlessly. The fact is piracy happens. Whether or not anyone here pirates software is irrelevent to most any company, so whether anyone is justifying their own use of pirated software doesn't bear on what's important to the company. What *is* relevant, in general, is "the bottom line". I certainly have not intended to propose anything that would endanger a company's bottom line. Rather the opposite in fact.
So, speaking for myself I am looking at it from both sides: how can companies maximize their profits while also minimizing wasted effort, which includes effort wasted on copy protection schemes that in effect provide no more protection than previous schemes. Do you think the Photoshop CS2 activation meant significantly fewer copies were pirated? Considering it was broken in about the same amount of time as previous copy protection I am guessing not. Even if that were the case the better question is did Adobe net more sales because if it? Unless the answer is a categorical yes (very hard to prove - new features in CS2 could attract new customers for example), then it was a waste of time and money for Adobe.
So the question then becomes, if draconian copy protection schemes are not an answer, and piracy is at an unacceptable level, how do you remedy that? One proposed solution could be tiered software pricing based on voluntarily defined usage. Many smaller software developers are already using this model with some evident success. No one is forcing anyone to do anything, it is merely suggested that such an approach might have benefits for all involved - the company included. Think about the potential ramifications in real terms, irrespective of the unconventional nature of the approach. Just because it's different doesn't make it wrong or bad, and just because it's suggested doesn't make it a directive or an expectation.
- Oshyan
Cpilot:
cpilot -
i think you missed the entire point of javajones reply to my saying that, which i agree with.
no one said they should be forced to price things that way - we are simply suggesting that if they did that they might:
make more money
gain larger market share
build a more loyal and happy user base
do some good for the world
there are some difficulties of course, but perhaps not insurmountable ones. the use of tiered pricing *is* increasing it seems.. let's hope this trend continues.
--- End quote ---
Oh please.
This is just another rationaliztion thread for piracy.
You go into Kmart and you buy a 19 inch TV. When you take it home you can watch porno on it, take it apart, smash it against a wall...hell it's yours.
But if Kmart says you gotta pay 125.00 US for it, just because you don't have 125.00 US don't mean you have a right to demand they sell it for 25.00 US or your going to steal it.
Part of being an adult is if you want something bad enough you go out and actully work for it. Stealing just because you can't afford it is not an excuse.
Software vendors have a right to charge what they please...the market will determine the value.
Again this is just another thread designed to rationalize the theft of software.
Theft is theft......just because it goes on don't mean it's right. So that excuse don't fly.
Companies are not in the business to garner good will or "do good", their in business to make a profit.
I have investments....if any company I invest in does crap like this for "good will" I would pull my money and invest it where I can make a profit.
You can't make a profit from small time losers who won't invest in something that has value. It's not a smart investment.
Plain and simple.
mouser:
There are a couple of discussions happening simultaneously here..
One discussion is about why it might be beneficial for everyone (INCLUDING THE COMPANIES PROFITS) to have a more "enlightened" pricing system. Clearly some companies have implemented tiered pricing for their own selfish reasons. Dual open source licenses are becoming more popular - where the software is free for open source/non-profit use, but costs money for commercial use. Again these companies are doing this because they think it makes economic sense.
The other discussion is about the ethics of using pirated software. That's a much stickier issue. I do think there is a difference between legality, morality, ethics. I think people need to consider the ethical consequences of their actions. But in a world so stacked against individuals (especially those who are struggling for financial survial) and so stacked in favor of large corporations, that such issues are not as simple as you might think.
I don't presume to have all the answers. This site will not condone software piracy - we are more interested in finding an alternative way to find a healthy medium. Your description of business as only concerned with profit is what i think is wrong with this world - everyone seems to be coming to accept the idea that the only rational goal of any individual or business is simply to grab as much profit as possible as fast as possible, and damned the consequences or anyone else. The only goal of any business it to get as big as possible, as fast as possible, and aquire as much power as possible. that's an exaggeration but not a huge one. does it have to be that way? i hope not. i hope there's still room in this world for reasonable people to seek a reasonable middle ground. those of us who recognize we have to make some money to live but who have desires that are more important than profit, like doing something we enjoy that doesn't make the world a worse place.
app103:
My suggestion is for schools to use open source/freeware alternatives to help students avoid the lure of pirated software. If "industry standard" software is needed for a vocational course, so be it, else don't use it and students would then have compatabilty as an incentive to use open source / freeware at home, as well as having their consciousness raised on this issue.
-tsaint (May 29, 2006, 09:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
Maybe it might raise the cost of their schooling a bit, but why not make it a policy to give every student a legal copy of the software they will be learning how to use? If this was done, schools would most likely move to open source & freeware when they can to avoid the cost of giving out expensive software.
But it's corporate use of software that dictates what they will learn to use in school. Why give students Open Office and then turn them loose in a world where they will be expected to use MS Office and know all the details of how that software works?
And imagine if schools made students learn by using Paintshop Pro rather than Photoshop? Paintshop Pro can do just about everything Photoshop can. But once you graduate, you will be expected to use Photoshop.
And why is this? Because that is what the businesses will purchase. Why do they purchase something more expensive when they can save tons by using something else? Because schools keep churning out people that only know how to use the expensive crap. It has become a vicious cycle that there seems to be no way out.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version