#Schreiber Silliness
14 messages in this thread
PMJI, but . . .
>> If it could be copied freely we would be out of our profits. <<
Where is there evidence of this? Microsoft does not copy protect their stuff,
they certainly are not hurting. Shareware is not hurting. It seems to me that
copy protection may actually _limit_ the potential of a product for two
reasons:
1) People like Roger, myself, and others who get fed-up with jumping through
silly protection hoops may not buy the software.
2) The advertisment value of pirated software can sometimes outweigh the value
of creating copy-protected software.
I am not advocating piracy. I am, however, saying that many "pirates" will buy
a product after they have tried it out – if for nothing more than the manuals!
This is why sharware works. This is how MANY commercial applications get off
the ground. If its money you're after, look into what forms of marketing
really work!
— James — MAP —
PS: No disrespect meant to you, Mike, or others with copy protection schemes
— only a personal opinion.
As in regards to Microsoft There's millions of computers out there so they
do'nt loose out they still make alot of money there's a difference from a small
CO like us [SDP] and a big CO. like microsoft.
Mike White [SDP]
Mike,
Do you really think if Bill Gates would have made everyone call in for
permission to reload DOS we'd even be using DOS today?
Roger D.
I must disagree. If economies of scale were in effect, then the shareware
scheme would have failed long ago. All shareware starts out on just a few
computers, and if the software is worth it, it still succeeds.
I think your comparison of 'they have many customers' and 'we have few' for a
reason to support copy protection is a common assumption unsupported by the
evidence.
— James — MAP —
James,
<<Where is the evidence of this?>>
I've got to agree with you. I'm certainly not aware of and I'd certainly be
interested to hear of any verifiable studies by the Software Publishers
Association or anyone else that showed companies more profitable after
implementing oppressive protection schemes like Schreibers. My suspicion is
that a bunch of people sit around thinking that they've got a bunch of really
cool stuff to sell, and can't imagine why profits aren't what they might have
hoped. And then someone says, " It must be piracy. That's the ticket."
<<…many "pirates" will buy a product after they have tried it out – if for
nothing more than the manual!>>
Maybe I'm just slow, but I can't imagine trying to do any of this stuff without
a manual. Or maybe software pirates, on top of everything else, are supposed
to be superhuman individuals.
Roger D.
One more thought on copy protection actually _hurting_ sales . . .
If I remember right, word of mouth is the most effective means of marketing any
product or service. The correllary poses that the inverse is also true.
I have read now at least four messages of dissatisfaction and disrecommendation
due to the Schreiber protection scheme. Let us conservatively assume that for
each of these messages, two people decide not to buy the product. They are
turning people off to the product faster than turning people on to it. It
sounds degenerative to me.
Every person who buys a product could be considered the root of a binary tree
for future sales (word of mouth, remember). But if the tree is cut down at the
root level because of customer disatisfaction, a huge potential is lost.
Why do they do this? When will it change? Who is John Gault?
— James — MAP —
James:
/__________From your message___________\\
Who is John Gault? __________________________________________
Do you have his CIS address? <BG>
Bob
Bob:
>> Who is John Gault?
>>>> Do you have his CIS address?
Try a search by company name – he's may be still listed under "Taggert
Transcontinental", but he may have let it lapse by now…
Greg Pyros
>> may be still listed under "Taggert Transcontinental" <<
🙂 🙂 🙂
— James — MAP —
If the positive word-of-mouth chain ("binary tree") is the same size as the
negative w-o-m chain, what's the balance? Does good news travel farther than
bad news? From my experience, word of bugs and deficiencies does *NOT* carry
as far as the news of new, hip features; this leads to situations where
inferior products are promoted *forever* because they have one snappy feature.
>> this leads to situations where inferior products are promoted *forever*
because they have one snappy feature. <<
You have a point — and it supports my premis that inane protection schemes are
unneccessary for the success of a company.
— James — MAP —
Shareware "successful"? For every Buttonware or Phil Katz, there's a thousand
languishing shareware products. As a scheme for making money, I do not
recommend shareware. You'd do better digging ditches, or for that matter,
becoming a Novell Certified Engineer. 🙂
John,
A member of the operating engineers union running a backhoe today with
benefits, unemployment and overtime could very well make more than you or me.
You should be careful what you say about ditchdigger these days. <g> I think
there were laborers working on that bridge project in CA that made well in
excess of $100,000 for that one bridge.
Roger D.
If the sharware is useful it will be successful. The reason there is such a
failure ratio is that there are so many useless pieces of shareware.
Usefull shareware does not depend on protection. Rather, it depends on trust.
If it is usefull, it will succed. Likewise, the use of copy protection will
not make a company. If the software is usefull, it will succeed — unless
there is customer dissatisfaction with the software despite its usefullness
(IMHO).
>> becoming a Novell Certified Engineer << <BG>
— James — MAP —