CompuServe Thread

Ok Perry, I'm going to take this completely apart and put it together again. I realize that you've given this a great deal of thought and that it bothers you quite a bit, but frankly speaking, you're creating many of your own problems. There is a natural and understandable tendency on the part of developers to want every potential user to purchase his/her own copy of software. Nice, fair, profitable, predictable. Not at all realistic. Let me make several points here: 1) This is a marketplace. It is anything but FAIR. That doesn't mean it can't be functional, profitable, manageable, productive. An in many ways it is quite predictable, if common sense is used. 2) The software business in particular is different from other types of marketplace endeavors. All the costs are up front in design and lead-time. Very few costs follow distribution. The financial strategies must be planned accordingly. 3) This notion of ultimate control of end use by software companies is absurd. Fine, your copyright protects you from unauthorized duplication and re-sale. But, as far as I'm concerned, if I paid for your product, I'll copy and use it on any machine I own or have access to and in any way I like. Now lets look at some of the characteristics of software. 1) Game software has a limited life expectancy. If a product is priced based on its usefulness to a user, it must sell sufficient copies to cover development and marketing costs plus profit for the period of expected life or it is not of sufficient value to be marketed. This is exclusive of any perceived loss to duplication. There should be no other expected profits, such as potential purchasers based on number of computers sold etc. Sales expectations should be based on usefulness and life expectancy. 2) Unauthorized duplication, while to be discouraged, is to be recognized as a fact of life. Like with all forces, there are good and bad points about duplication. Being exposed to computers in industry and school, I can tell you quite honestly that I have never met a person who has used a computer that has not used a pirated copy at one time or another. To me, a pirated copy has the effect of advertising. If the product is good, I may not buy that product, but will probably buy another product by that company. Let me just say that, as a policy, I buy and don't distribute. Yes, there are people who only pirate software. You can either continue to bang your head against a wall trying to stop them, or consider them as an advertising source for your product while working in general to educate the public against piracy and possibly using a non-intrusive form of protection (if in fact there is such a thing to be found). Games, unfortunately, will always be a pirating target because of their short life and high user cost based on quantity over time. 3) To businesses that expect to remain in a marketplace, values such as customer satisfaction, service reputation, innovative features, frequently have more importance than wasting time and bad publicity by attacking the public and battling over real or imagined losses in potential revenue. In other words, if the profits in hand are not sufficient, then complaining isn't going to increase the profits. Use business sense. Decrease costs, increase market size by increasing utility, make more products (especially those that build on other products), diversify, and advertise (educate). 4) Utility software is in a difderent situation. Long life, complicated functions, and the necessity for flexibility, mean that these products can be profitable with a higher user cost and for a longer time. They also create the potential for accessories and add-ons. Therefore, these items should always be free from any copy-protection. While not fast movers, they are a steady source of income. 5) If you compare the software industry with its high initial cost and low distribution costs, with the manufacturing industry with its constant costs, you can see where the greed for the easy money down the road distorts your long term values which the manufacturing industry must live with daily. As a final thought, I really wish people would stop this pre-occupation with pirates and controlling end users, and treat software as a patented tool, which it really is. We can't duplicate it and sell it, but we should be able to use it in any manner that we see fit. We should also have the same relationship with the software vendor as with the tool vendor; technical support and product warranty. I also wish that this would be the end of this subject once and for all. If you can't agree with these feelings, Perry, than you really shouldn't be in the business. Ted

Ok Perry, I'm going to take this completely apart and put it together again. I realize that you've given this a great deal of thought and that it bothers you quite a bit, but frankly speaking, you're creating many of your own problems. There is a natural and understandable tendency on the part of developers to want every potential user to purchase his/her own copy of software. Nice, fair, profitable, predictable. Not at all realistic. Let me make several points here: 1) This is a marketplace. It is anything but FAIR. That doesn't mean it can't be functional, profitable, manageable, productive. An in many ways it is quite predictable, if common sense is used. 2) The software business in particular is different from other types of marketplace endeavors. All the costs are up front in design and lead-time. Very few costs follow distribution. The financial strategies must be planned accordingly. 3) This notion of ultimate control of end use by software companies is absurd. Fine, your copyright protects you from unauthorized duplication and re-sale. But, as far as I'm concerned, if I paid for your product, I'll copy and use it on any machine I own or have access to and in any way I like. Now lets look at some of the characteristics of software. 1) Game software has a limited life expectancy. If a product is priced based on its usefulness to a user, it must sell sufficient copies to cover development and marketing costs plus profit for the period of expected life or it is not of sufficient value to be marketed. This is exclusive of any perceived loss to duplication. There should be no other expected profits, such as potential purchasers based on number of computers sold etc. Sales expectations should be based on usefulness and life expectancy. 2) Unauthorized duplication, while to be discouraged, is to be recognized as a fact of life. Like with all forces, there are good and bad points about duplication. Being exposed to computers in industry and school, I can tell you quite honestly that I have never met a person who has used a computer that has not used a pirated copy at one time or another. To me, a pirated copy has the effect of advertising. If the product is good, I may not buy that product, but will probably buy another product by that company. Let me just say that, as a policy, I buy and don't distribute. Yes, there are people who only pirate software. You can either continue to bang your head against a wall trying to stop them, or consider them as an advertising source for your product while working in general to educate the public against piracy and possibly using a non-intrusive form of protection (if in fact there is such a thing to be found). Games, unfortunately, will always be a pirating target because of their short life and high user cost based on quantity over time. 3) To businesses that expect to remain in a marketplace, values such as customer satisfaction, service reputation, innovative features, frequently have more importance than wasting time and bad publicity by attacking the public and battling over real or imagined losses in potential revenue. In other words, if the profits in hand are not sufficient, then complaining isn't going to increase the profits. Use business sense. Decrease costs, increase market size by increasing utility, make more products (especially those that build on other products), diversify, and advertise (educate). 4) Utility software is in a difderent situation. Long life, complicated functions, and the necessity for flexibility, mean that these products can be profitable with a higher user cost and for a longer time. They also create the potential for accessories and add-ons. Therefore, these items should always be free from any copy-protection. While not fast movers, they are a steady source of income. 5) If you compare the software industry with its high initial cost and low distribution costs, with the manufacturing industry with its constant costs, you can see where the greed for the easy money down the road distorts your long term values which the manufacturing industry must live with daily. As a final thought, I really wish people would stop this pre-occupation with pirates and controlling end users, and treat software as a patented tool, which it really is. We can't duplicate it and sell it, but we should be able to use it in any manner that we see fit. We should also have the same relationship with the software vendor as with the tool vendor; technical support and product warranty. I also wish that this would be the end of this subject once and for all. If you can't agree with these feelings, Perry, than you really shouldn't be in the business. Ted