http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000433.html


its an interesting overview, but Im not seeing any good solutions..

It was necessary for me to point out the many, many programs that DON'T install spyware, DON'T use trickery to get you to register them, DON'T use a subset of features you don't find out you don't have until it's too late, and DON'T sell your name and machine access to the higher bidder?

Wow, click to summon...

"It was necessary for me to point out the many, many programs that DON'T install spyware...<snip>...blah blah blah...?"


only if you wanted to actually complete your essay.  it was an interesting read.  it had a good beginning and a excellent middle.

I would have liked to have read the end.

Im a shareware developer of underwhelming success.  Like you, I like the idea of a minimal interruption to the user for registration purposes.

I have 2 products released, one of those is aimed at a specific group of people...because it has some specific visual output I write 'UNREGISTERED' over a piece of the output.

This has a good registration rate.

The second is a recent release and has no specific visual output, so I simply put the word 'UNREGISTERED' at the top of the main window.

Both applications are entirely functional in every respect including their network functionality and so on.

The second product appears to be somewhat more popular than the first with downloads increasing at a faster rate and so on.

unfortunately the second product has absolutely no registrations to date.  due to some centralised networked aspects of it I have a very good record of how many people are using it, and lots of people are using it every day.


The next release is going to be more intrusive in its unregistered message.....its either that or entirely give up developing it.

so, what I would have been interested in reading above and beyond the very good overview you gave would have been a discussion of the trade offs, the importance of ensuring a $ return for developers to allow them to continue to develop and a quick overview of techniques for ensuring the $ return that you personally would approve of.

Simply requesting that shareware developers not be intrusive in any way is fine and good, but ultimately it means there is going to be sod all commercial shareware developed.

which seems like a shame.

He does offer alternatives.
He suggests the removal of all non-functional aspects of share/free ware that are designed to make you register or pay, in the hope that users will pay out of free will and the goodness of their heart.
Unfortunately that's just not the way the world works.

right, thats the thing.  he is talking about removal of all of that, but not actually discussing or attempting to deal with the ramifications, and not providing any insight to developers about what to replace that stuff with.

its half an article.

heh. 

"Jason Scott is an arrogant, self-impressed idiot who thinks he's god's gift to techies because he remembers "the golden days" of BBS's. I met him at my first (and last) slashdot "meetup"; he dominated the conversation amongst a table of eight, spending hours talking about his favorite subject: himself."

nice byline.

I guess that explains the click to summon, he must spend a goodly percentage of his time scanning his referrer logs...

Jason?  Yoohoo!  Care to rebut?

I hate the cowardly ones.

It's called a sleep schedule. (1am - 9am EST, generally). I'll rebut on my weblog.

Seriously? The "it's called..." retort?  Are you 9?

Highlighting the problem is a good start.

I actually agree with most of what he writes. I still maintain a machine that I test pretty much every software I ever get.

Yup, even that monstrosity that is now the Norton Suite got a trial on that baby. OS reinstall every so often, and I am guaranteed that anything I run on my proper machines is up to spec.

That is just too much shit* out there to take chances.

*and by shit, I do not mean bad software. I mean the malicious sort.