[Kevin]

Since when is shareware pay for each upgrade now?

It used to be with shareware you payed once, and got every upgrade for free. Or atleast got 2 or 3 upgrades for free.

That was the difference between it and commercial software were you had to pay for EACH upgrade. That and you could download and try it out before buying it. Now most all commercial software has this feature too.

Too many "shareware authors" are treating their miniscule applications like they are commercial software packages.

Shareware is now basically commercialware made by one person.

The first time I ran into this is when the "StupidFish" company (which consists of one immoral coder) tried to charge for a version of it's ShadowClipboard to people that had not only payed for it, but was promised features version 3 had when they bought it.

And before coders attack me and tell me how much time is spent coding etc, I know. But try to get ANYONE to pay for themes and you'll get heckled. And they take just as much time and effort to make as a icon changer.

If you are going to label your product shareware do so and treat it as much. If you want to charge a price for EACH upgrade call it commercial software. That way no one is caught in a bait and switch game.

At one time the difference between the two was price, AND the ability to download the program and try it before buying it. Now most all commercial software has this feature too. You can download a trial version of Photoshop now before buying it.

So why does the shareware title even exist now? It and commercial software act just a like.

I don't mind shareware authors after so many years asking people who are still using their new product to pay a bit more. As a matter of fact my IRC application I've been using since 1996 and have gotten free upgrades up until 2005. He recoded quite a bit of it, and asked that those that bought it before 2002 to pay half the cost of what he was asking for it. I gladly did that. That wasn't being greedy at all. And I still considers his application shareware.

[analogika]

Shareware just means that anybody is free to distribute it (that's the "share" part), but that if you use it regularly, it should be paid for.

That's all the term means.

Basically, it's try-before-you-buy-ware.

How pricing is set across versions, and how it is enforced (by partial functionality - "crippleware" or by messages - "nagware") is completely irrelevant.

It's still shareware.

All sorts of pricing schemes have been around for the past twenty years.

[mduell]

Shareware is a subset of commercial software.
Shareware has always meant "software which is fully functional for a short period of time without payment." Trial versions are usually feature crippled and time limited. As far as upgrades, I'm used to security/bug fixes being free and new features being pay, regardless of what you call the distribution/sales model.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And before coders attack me and tell me how much time is spent coding etc, I know. But try to get ANYONE to pay for themes and you'll get heckled.

That is neither their fault nor their problem. You can't say, "I'm unable to make money with X, so you shouldn't make money with Y." That just isn't how commerce works. Making software is more work than making a DVD, programmers don't walk into Target and demand their whole movies section for free. And you especially can't say, as you seem to be doing here, "I'm unable to make money with X, so you shouldn't make money with Y — but you should keep on doing it for free because I like it."

Anyway, as people have said, your idea of shareware is a little out of synch with other people's. It's meant to be software that is free to use for a certain period of time and you can send it to other people so they can try it for said amount of time as well. That's probably the cause of the misunderstanding.

[Kevin]

I am just being honest. Until about 4 or so years ago MOST ALL shareware was buy once, pay once.

That there is very little difference between shareware and commercial software now.

That also, people should not rush to buy shareware that isn't fully complete or doesn't have the featureset you want. To wait and pay for it till it does. Don't buy it on what the author claims it's GOING TO BE. Because by that time, he might make you pay for it again.

What I am saying is, I am just more careful what I buy now than I used to be. And it has to do with recent changes in attitudes of those that make "shareware"

A lot of people think shareware is dead.

Unsanity.org: Shareware Is Dead

Then again there are too many people trying to make a living just off of ONE shareware app. These are the people that usually charge for each revision. And it's usually something like a "artwork finder for itunes" or a "icon changer"

[mduell]

I'm not surprised buy-once updates-forever shareware is dead... there's little to no business case for it. May as well go freeware (or even OSS) with a donation jar.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I'm not surprised buy-once updates-forever shareware is dead...

Oh it's not dead. And it's still the majority of the cases of shareware out there. Those that expect people to pay for each new shareware version are those in the minority. That is why I think it's important for those that do it to make sure that their customer knows what the case is before buying. I requested one do this only to have him tell me no. When I asked why, I never got a response. Of course he doesn't want to miss a sale. Regardless of how it's gotten.

there's little to no business case for it.

Most people that make shareware apps do it for a hobby. And aren't trying to make a living off it. Most have jobs or are going to school and using said money for extra spending. Those attempting to make a living off of one or two small shareware apps are going to be disappointed and attempt to over-charge. Which will just drive out customers. The application that wins is always the one that does the same things, but cheaper. There is always someone willing to make a better/cheaper app that does the same thing just for the "rep" and attention.

May as well go freeware (or even OSS) with a donation jar.

And a lot have been going this way too.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Then again there are too many people trying to make a living just off of ONE shareware app. These are the people that usually charge for each revision. And it's usually something like a "artwork finder for itunes" or a "icon changer"

When you say "each revision," are you talking about minor revisions or actual upgrades? Because pretty much (not all of them, but pretty much) every software developer on the planet is going to charge for legitimate upgrades, not just people trying to make a living off one shareware app. There's a point where charging for new versions is unreasonable, but there's also a point where expecting upgrades to be free is unreasonable.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

When you say "each revision," are you talking about minor revisions or actual upgrades? Because pretty much (not all of them, but pretty much) every software developer on the planet is going to charge for legitimate upgrades, not just people trying to make a living off one shareware app. There's a point where charging for new versions is unreasonable, but there's also a point where expecting upgrades to be free is unreasonable.

Hmm most all shareware bug fixes AND upgrades are free. Most of the ones I have bought anyhow. I've payed once for all the shareware I actually use and have never had to pay again accept for an IRC application. And that was after 10 years. And I only had to pay half price.

Again very few people "make it" selling shareware for a living. You have to really have something special, or a lot of titles to do it. And it has to be reasonable. Or someone is just gonna make a program that does that same thing, and undercut you in price.

That is why I am careful as to what I buy and what I do not.

I fell for the bait and switch once with the StupidFish guy. Who promised features I requested before I would register "It will be in the next update, promise" till that update he didn't charge for updates. Then suddenly he announced he was charging for it without warning. So I was paying for an application as that had features I was being promised, he just purposely left out the "You'll have to pay again when those features come out" Or just decided at the last minute to charge. Either way it was bad business, and he lost a lot of customers to other shareware developers.

[Chuckit]

I totally agree that you shouldn't buy software that doesn't do what you want. I mean, I would say that whether or not you had to pay for an upgrade. I think that's a kind of sale that it's good to lose, because if you implement the feature later, you'll get the sale back anyway, and if you don't implement the feature, you've saved yourself a pissed off customer.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I'm not surprised buy-once updates-forever shareware is dead... there's little to no business case for it. May as well go freeware (or even OSS) with a donation jar.

So far I haven't charged for any upgrades for Pacifist. I'm not sure if that makes me a nice guy or whether I'm just being stupid, but that's what I've been doing so far.

[Tipo]

I don't generally mind it when an upgrade costs money. If I am a previous buyer and I don't get some kind of a hefty discount on the upgrade, then I may rethink purchasing it.

What gets me is the people who charge money for a beta, and then charge again for the 1.0 version...

[besson3c]

There is also donation ware which hasn't been discussed here. I wonder how much your average shareware developer makes in comparison to your average donation ware developer?

[Chuckit]

How much do you think your average beggar makes compared to your average shop owner?

BTW, I agree with Tipo. Charging for a beta is sketchy at best.

[Kevin]

Onno did it for years with Ircle. One of the most popular IRC clients out for the Mac. He kept the thing in perpetual beta, then kept charging for it. Would release release versions like ever 4 or so years. But the beta's would even change major version numbers.

The only "version" history I could see was incomplete.

The Official Ircle Home Page, version history

I dumbed it as soon as Snak came out.

I like the way the guy who codes PTH Pasteboard does it. You guys should also check out that program if you want multiple clipboards for the Mac.

Not only does it WORK better than ShadowClipboard, it is cheaper. And has a lot of free useful features.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How much do you think your average beggar makes compared to your average shop owner?

Bad analogy.

The analogy would be more like "how much can a busker or roadside entertainer make in a highly populated area (i.e. this is analogous to recognizing the value and potential of unfettered market penetration) vs. an entertainer in some shop located somewhere else?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How much do you think your average beggar makes compared to your average shop owner?

Hey now, comparing a shareware author to a beggar isn't exactly fair. For one thing, shareware authors actually do create a (hopefully) useful product rather than just asking you for money.

BTW, I agree with Tipo. Charging for a beta is sketchy at best.

Thing is, this one is damned if you do, damned if you don't. I didn't charge for the betas of Pacifist 1.0, because it was a beta. So when I released version 1.0 as shareware, a bitchfest ensued on the VersionTracker review page about my charging for a product that was once "free", even though the read me for the beta had explicitly said that the pricing of the final version was TBD.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Hey now, comparing a shareware author to a beggar isn't exactly fair. For one thing, shareware authors actually do create a (hopefully) useful product rather than just asking you for money.

The donationware authors were the beggars in the analogy. The idea behind the comparison was that donationware authors are cool people who provide (hopefully) cool programs for free, and they hope you'll give them money but don't actually tie it to using the software. Unfortunately, most people will not give you money even if you put up a sign announcing that you got shot in the crotch in 'Nam to defend the folks walking past you.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Thing is, this one is damned if you do, damned if you don't. I didn't charge for the betas of Pacifist 1.0, because it was a beta. So when I released version 1.0 as shareware, a bitchfest ensued on the VersionTracker review page about my charging for a product that was once "free", even though the read me for the beta had explicitly said that the pricing of the final version was TBD.

Eh, after reading enough product pages on VersionTracker, I've come to the conclusion that people bitching about price on that site is just a fact of life. It seems like every product is either overpriced or should be free in somebody's eyes.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's bad to charge people money during the beta period — just that if you do, it should count as a preorder for the final version. I guess I didn't quite make that clear the way I phrased it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Bad analogy.

The analogy would be more like "how much can a busker or roadside entertainer make in a highly populated area (i.e. this is analogous to recognizing the value and potential of unfettered market penetration) vs. an entertainer in some shop located somewhere else?

Nah, that's a poor analogy. The donationware busker is performing in the exact same area as the shareware club singer.

Anyway, I was being a little bit flip. It is kind of an interesting question, but it's my experience that people in general are much more willing to buy something cool than they are to donate money to somebody cool who needs it, so I don't expect it to be anything like close.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Nah, that's a poor analogy. The donationware busker is performing in the exact same area as the shareware club singer.

Anyway, I was being a little bit flip. It is kind of an interesting question, but it's my experience that people in general are much more willing to buy something cool than they are to donate money to somebody cool who needs it, so I don't expect it to be anything like close.

I agree with that, but I don't agree with your characterization of my characterization that donationware software authors are cool.

It's easy to pigeonhole people who use Linux as people who believe that all software should be free, but I'm not one of those people, and most Linux users that I know are not religious about this either. The main reason for Linux users wanting to separate commercial stuff from OSS is so that it is clear as to what licenses apply. If any of this stuff about Linux is irrelevant here and you weren't thinking along these lines in your response to me, discard everything I've said here.

My main fascination with the idea of donationware (and this is addressed towards everybody reading this thread) is the concept of market penetration. One basic premise in marketing (as I understand it) is that there are certain non-niche type products that benefit greatly from striving for a maximum amount of market penetration, particularly into new markets that have not been tapped into. To do so, companies may give away the product for free or next to nothing. Getting a free sample in the mail for some new exciting brand of laundry detergent might be an example of that, although there are probably better examples.

However, with all of this said, people generally assign more intrinsic value to things that are not cheap or free. Perhaps if somebody thought that a piece of software was only free for a limited period of time they would attach more value to it. On the other hand, there are many products that nobody would use unless they were cheap or free anyway.

Pricing is a tricky balancing act, but I think that what we have seen with the relative success of open source software is that profits don't have to come from the sale of a tangible item, and that market penetration is a very powerful thing. I don't see advertisements on the sides of buses for Firefox, yet it has done remarkably well with a limited amount of resources - particularly on the Windows side.

[Kevin]

All I am saying is, too many people looking to make a living off of one or two small shareware apps are being a bit deluded. And probably wont succeed.

I was given a reason why a certain author kept charging premium price for every upgrade. He told me that is how he was keeping alive. That he had no interest in getting a real job etc. So someone came by, undercut him in price, and released a similar product. This guy got his "gang" to flame and give the new guy bad reports to devalue his product. He justified it by saying "He is trying to take away my living"

Welcome to life buddy. It's not fair. You have to adapt.

[MacosNerd]

I think times have changed in a lot of areas in the computer sector.

One of them is shareware. Its now trying to be more like commercial apps. Where before you saw a large portion of shareware authors as hobbyists creating applications that fit a niche, or need for themselves and decided to publish it for others to enjoy. Now people see this as just another avenue to market applications and generate income.

I remember when pkzip hit the streets, all because SEA sued Katz. Almost overnight the computer community dropped the ARC format for the zip format. I purchased winzip years ago and was promised free upgrades for life. Eventually that I think has changed and the current makers of winzip have thrown in adware, and dropped that promise. My point is the shareware sector has matured and a lot of the hobbyists and people who like to poke around are probably drowned out by folks using shareware like commercial apps.

Open source is probably where you see a lot of the geeks and hobbyists poking around now, knowing they're not going to get it rich with shareware they program and share it for the enjoyment.

[Kevin]

What I am basically saying is, Shareware is great for making money on the side, to increase your profit over all. But it's not so hot when you are trying to make a living just from those applications.

That is why I tend to be more CAREFUL as to what I register now. Having said that, the coder that burned me still hasn't mentioned his pricing scheme anywhere on his register page informing users about upgrades. I see this as being shady.

And I agree with MacOSNerd, most shareware came to exist because the programmer made it for himself for a reason. Making a few dollars on it on the side doesn't hurt. But acting as if you are a commercial business is another. I think certain people cross the line of pretension.

Reminds me back when the guy who ran MacOSRumors tried to act as if the place had an actual office with people working there, instead of him basically running it out of his room. He got a lot of flack from that. I guess the stupidfish guy just rubbed me the wrong way. He is the only developer I've have ever had problems with as far as licensing and dishonesty went. And to this day he still is. And it was sad, cause ShadowClipboard could still become a great application. But no one is going to pay for it when they can get the same functions from another app for free, or less cost. When stupidfish pulled that stunt, a ton of his customers defected and started using PTH pasteboard instead. Which worked just as good. Not only that, he gave the basic version away for free. And only requires you to pay if you use the advanced features. (The coding that actually took him a bit of time)

I payed for it even though I didn't use a lot of those advanced features just because I knew a year from now he wont be asking for more money.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I was given a reason why a certain author kept charging premium price for every upgrade. He told me that is how he was keeping alive. That he had no interest in getting a real job etc.

And software production is not real because…?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And software production is not real because…?

Well to me if you can't make a living honestly doing what you are doing that it's really not making a honest living..

[Chuckit]

Eh, true enough. I suppose I misunderstood what you were saying.

[fire3500]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

So far I haven't charged for any upgrades for Pacifist. I'm not sure if that makes me a nice guy or whether I'm just being stupid, but that's what I've been doing so far.

You made Pacifist... ahhhh *bows down*

great job!

[Kevin]

Yes Pacifist is a good example of a great shareware application.

[itrush07]

Its always a good idea to taste the food first before going to your next big bite...

[Mithras]

Charles, if you don't mind the question, do you make any kind of a living from your software? Or do you consider it more like a weekend plaything for pizza-and-beer money?

[CharlesS]

To be honest, I'd rather not discuss that in a public forum.

[voodoo]

One fine piece of shareware I recently bought is BluePhoneElite. Damn fine. I bought version 1 and shortly after I bought it, version 2 was released for free to registered users. Much appreciated.

The second version included some features that were clearly superior to the first version, but I wouldn't have paid for the upgrade. The first version did everything I wanted it to, that why I bought it in the first place.

Another fine piece of software is Cyberduck. It's a donationware. I donated 15€ for it, because I find it to be very useful.. I just don't use it that much, only for the occational uploading on my personal website. The convenience of Cyberduck over Transmit is that Cyberduck handles Unicode characters in filenames better.

I'm reluctant to pay for is shareware sold for over 30€ with a week or less trial time, in general. I'm sure exceptions apply.

Paying for major upgrades is ok by me, if I as a registered user get an upgrade price (less than full price) and *only* if the author made it absoloutly clear that future major upgrades would cost money.

As long as that is clear from the start, I'm fine with it. Else, that author won't see a cent more from me.

V

[Peter]

I buy a lot of shareware. Really big fan of the stuff - Panic, OmniGroup ...

But some stuff? Acquisition and Newsfire spring to mind, are truely ridiculous shareware. Huge prices and you get no customer support. Avoid.

[MacosNerd]

Yeah I also buy shareware.

Some programs though just don't cut it and especially when they move from freeware/donationware to shareware. I think whatsize is a good example. The prior version was great, but the new one seems to be buggy. It now has a nagging screen to register, it's less stable. While I have no problems spending 13 bucks for a program this one needs be fixed before I plunk down some cash

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Paying for major upgrades is ok by me, if I as a registered user get an upgrade price (less than full price) and *only* if the author made it absoloutly clear that future major upgrades would cost money.

As long as that is clear from the start, I'm fine with it. Else, that author won't see a cent more from me.

Frankly, that reminds me of the guy who was bitching at me for charging for Pacifist 1.0 and not for the beta. If I had charged for the beta, he wouldn't have minded, but since the beta was free, then every subsequent version after that had to be, too.

It's not reasonable, IMO. Basically, you're asking developers to be able to predict the future. Sometimes the scope of an app becomes far larger than what the author originally planned - I know that when I first started writing Pacifist, I never had any idea that it would grow anywhere near as much as it has, although so far I haven't charged for upgrades. And sometimes the realities of the situation change... you can't expect a developer to know everything that is going to happen to him, his app, and his company right from the outset.

It's bad enough that due to inflation, the standard $20 price of a shareware product keeps decreasing in actual value every year - Pacifist's price is currently worth only $17.22 in dollars from 2002, when version 1.0 was released.

[Mithras]

Time to price in Euros