many a user was dissuaded from buying software which actively tried to trick the user as well. i wonder if this type of CLICK THE MOVING BUTTTON, inspired those horrible ‘click the monkey’ banner ads?

the next evolution of this purchase-ware, was the NOT FREE UPGRADE. to which the current apple operating system has taken a liking to. yes it was major updates only, minor updates are free. as long as you count giving OSX a USEABLE SEARCH FEATURE (spotlight) as a major update…

there is also the forced upgrade, what microsoft is doing now. ‘only works on xp/vista’ etc. it was nice when it was ‘windows 95/96/2000/2003/xp’ but that time has passed.

microsoft itself is doing it ‘directx/windowsmedia updates will not be availible for previous versions of windows’ and then ‘directx 99 is required to play this game’ or ‘windowsmedia 99 is required to view this video’.

i wonder in the future if we wont have ransom-ware programs. where software will install viruses and make the user pay a ransom to save his data from deletion. i’m surprised we havent seen this in wide use yet.

you forgot spyware completely. known spyware like ‘etrends’ or ‘desktopdollars’, that offered you money to spy on yourself (free money!). or spyware installed with other ‘free’ software, but without user permission like ‘gator’ or ‘bonzai buddy’.

i guess spyware isnt really software at all, since its not doing anything for the user. is it more of a trojan?

Freeware: We’re not making any money.
Shareware: It would be great if you sent us some money (but you probably won’t.)
Crippleware: We’re holding the best for ransom; we gotta get paid somehow!
Adware: Fuck you, user — we’re getting money from someone else now. You blew it.

Somewhere in there, there are some subclasses to be found. For example there were shareware programs that essentially freeware, except they asked for money in the documentation. There were shareware programs that included the basic program and were usable, but with additional unlockable niceties that came with paying a fee. Somewhere between shareware and crippleware were those time-restricted programs, programs that were fully functional but limited to x amount of runs or x amount of days.

As unpopular of a stance as it is to take, crippleware makes it a lot easier to justify the old pirate’s excuse of “try before you buy.” I can’t honestly evaluate a password cracker that tells me it recovered the lost password on a Microsoft Word document but refuses to tell me what it is.

Back in the 90’s there were a few companies that got it right — Apogee and ID come to mind — by releasing Shareware copies of their games that, while fully functional, only included one or two levels instead of the entire game. The shareware version of Doom only included the first level but it was enough to play, enjoy, and determine whether or not you wanted to buy the whole thing.

I am not uberprogrammer but I have released around a dozen programs that fall under what I consider to be the original Shareware concept — that is, fully functional apps that include a PayPal address in the documentation and a note that says, “if you like this program, please consider sending the author a buck or two.” A couple of my programs have been downloaded over a thousand times. To date, I’ve yet to receive a nickel — although to be fair, I’m not sure if that more accurately describes the state of Shareware, or the quality of my programming.

Having said that: there are only 24 hours in a day and a lot of stuff that needs doing. I don’t need huge collections of software eating up hard disk space.
So I have a limited amount of applications for which I happily pay the software developer. No money for development more often than not means no software or none of quality. The software developer’s product obviously has a use or it wouldn’t be pirated and they need to pay bills too.

A good product at a decent price will make me a very likely customer. I will spread the word and be happy to do so and encourage the rest of my user community to purchase the software so as to entice the developer to improve on the product and/or to create other, hopefully equally great products.

Good software is a joy to use, takes money, time and talent to develop and deserves to be paid for.

Bad software is the user’s choice to ignore.

Software that starts from the principle that I’m a thief and that any abuse directed at me is justified is beneath contempt and inspires physical violence towards the creator [if you think I'm overreacting, you've never lost irreplaceable data to some scumbag who thoroughly trashed your system because their interests as a 'programmer' outweighed your interests as a user].

The initial idea of sharing software and getting some money for it is a nobel and worthy cause but alas, it is tried in an environment where the constituent parts are made up of a thoroughly annoying species who has to screw up a good thing when it comes their way. It’s cynical, I admit it, but it’s also, sadly, true.