Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Why is so much software cracked?

<< < (10/27) > >>

mouser:
I think app's point is important, and it reminds me of one of the very best arguments against using pirated software that i've read, from an ethical standpoint.  if anyone knows the article i'm talking about please post it.

Basically the article argued a counter-intuitive point.  That the use of pirated software doesn't hurt the software companies making the software that is pirated - since the people who use pirated versions weren't likely to be potential customers.  It argued that it hurts most the open source and free alternative companies, who would OTHERWISE be thriving if there was no piracy.  It makes some sense and it's an extremely important point to bear in mind.  Does piracy hurt the open source, free, and donationware software community, because if people really couldn't use pirated versions of programs they would be more willing to support, contribute, and encourage these alternatives?

jgpaiva:
i want to echo the idea that tiered pricing seems to me like it might help these things a lot.
if you could find a more reasonable way of properly classifying home users vs. moderate sized companies, then you might be able to do it on a larger scale.  it would make a lot of sense to say photoshop is $5 for the unemployed, $50 for home users, and $500 for companies.

-mouser (May 30, 2006, 11:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
I like the part about $5 for the unemployed, since i'm unemployed myself.
But... That's impossible to do in reality, it can't be controlled. (who would know i was buying something for my father, who could be very rich, but paying 1/10th of the price?)

jgpaiva:
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.
-app103 (May 31, 2006, 01:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
The truth is.. That IS happening (see my post in this thread). I also think it's idiot, and it's a serious matter.
I think that in these cases, if the companies were smart enough, they'd donate some licenced copies to the schools, to earn some market share. (actually, this also happens, my school owns some academic licences of software).

The solution javajones mentioned is related to what i mentioned in my earlier post about the games where you can buy the game in parts.
I think this would be a very good solution for software, if it could be acomplished.
For example, a photoshop in a bunch of packages would be great, since some people don't use a third of the potential of photoshop. Truth is, that if this was in place, paintshop would have no costumers at all, since it'd be better to use a unified interface (photoshop), even if it was worse. (see the example of autocad)

Oh, and don't forget another important issue. Such photoshop product would earn also more users, which means even more user feedback, which i'm sure companies like.

koncool:
A few games, yes - because the cost per hour is cheaper than a cinema ticket
--- End quote ---

Okay, games are a totally different matter, I buy my games as well :Thmbsup:

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.
--- End quote ---

That's for sure. Ever heard of a software called COMNET III, used for designing/testing/simulating network layouts? They used to use it a lot here. When the company was merged with another one the product line got dropped. Although there are LOTS of software that do the same job, they KEEP using that, even if they have no technical support and stuff... Another weird story from the local universities :'(

Carol Haynes:
Oh please.
This is just another rationaliztion thread for piracy.
-Cpilot (May 31, 2006, 12:24 AM)
--- End quote ---

No its not - it is a rationalisation for companies to stop piracy and make more profits.

The point is that piracy happens on a massive scale and especially for the expensive applications. No one here is condoning that - certainly not me (I pay for all my software - even though some apps are excessively expensive).

However I believe piracy would be significantly reduced and sale volumes would grow in response to sensible pricing.

You only have to look at lots of areas in the business world to see that pricing is often based purely on 'what the market will pay' and is nothing to do with investment or realistic costs. Look at a few examples - why does it cost hundreds of dollars to get a lawyer to write a will for you when it is a standard format which you can write yourself on a piece of paper? Similarly I regularly get invited to conferences where a day of 'teaching' costs as much as a month's salary per person that I was paid when I taught in adult education - basically they charge what people are willing to pay and it has nothing to do with actual osts or value.

Microsoft admit this is the model they use for setting prices - it simply doesn't make sense to charge the prices they do and then spend millions on anti piracy measures which have the effect of really annoying their legitimate users. Similarly with Adobe - have either company actually sold more copies since they introduced product activation? Probably not because those who buy the software will still buy it (and be irritated by the activation and inability to easily move from one macjine to another) and those who download cracked versions and pay nothing will still do so. Wouldn't it be simpler to sell software at a price that can be easily afforded and encourage many more sales so that you make the same amount of money or more and grow your market share? In many areas volume sales (eg. food) => lower prices - but not in the software world apparently.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page