3 ms·

I must be misunderstanding something, because I thought that the problem you noted was that they wouldn't see the open source version on a shopping comparison.

by 13ren 18y ago

I must be misunderstanding something, because I thought that the problem you noted was that they wouldn't see the open source version on a shopping comparison. Wouldn't the same problem apply to shareware? It depends on what market you are thinking of, ie. where they would see (or not see) the offering. I thought you meant physical retail outlets. What did you have in mind?

thomasmallen 18y ago
Shareware has a price attached. With a price attached (and presumably some sort of marketing) it would show up in these results. Those people who still buy software are already well past worrying about lack of a hard copy, and the rise of iPhone and co. has ensured that this distribution model will become the norm. All of the software I've purchased in the past few years has been without a hard copy.
- 13ren 18y ago
  thanks, now I see a price attached makes a difference; else it's not "shopping", so won't show up in a shopping comparison. Yes, just making it shareware would fix that. I'd guess they'd want to keep it open source: they could dual license it - but there might be a backlash if buyers find out they could have got it free (ironically...) so perhaps some trivial glossy addition to the shareware version, so there's a sense you're getting something for your money... mail you a USB drive with it installed? (very cool). mail you a printed manual? (old skool) or, maybe include a bunch of glossy templates, by a paid pro graphic artist (I like this, because (a). digital, auto-delivery; (b). not code). I'm assuming they're not in it for the money so it doesn't matter if they only break even (as long as it's not a hassle to provide); it's just a device to promote adoption (as you say).
  - thomasmallen 18y ago
    The point is you never actually ask for money. Have fine print that it's a donation if they do pay anything, but the program works perfectly with no warnings or anything of the sort, completely free. It's all a clever scheme though, and I didn't mean it in any seriousness. Now, back to my original comment, people tie prices closely to expectations as well as perceived quality.

by 13ren 18y ago

thomasmallen 18y ago

Shareware has a price attached. With a price attached (and presumably some sort of marketing) it would show up in these results. Those people who still buy software are already well past worrying about lack of a hard copy, and the rise of iPhone and co. has ensured that this distribution model will become the norm. All of the software I've purchased in the past few years has been without a hard copy.

13ren 18y ago
thanks, now I see a price attached makes a difference; else it's not "shopping", so won't show up in a shopping comparison. Yes, just making it shareware would fix that. I'd guess they'd want to keep it open source: they could dual license it - but there might be a backlash if buyers find out they could have got it free (ironically...) so perhaps some trivial glossy addition to the shareware version, so there's a sense you're getting something for your money... mail you a USB drive with it installed? (very cool). mail you a printed manual? (old skool) or, maybe include a bunch of glossy templates, by a paid pro graphic artist (I like this, because (a). digital, auto-delivery; (b). not code). I'm assuming they're not in it for the money so it doesn't matter if they only break even (as long as it's not a hassle to provide); it's just a device to promote adoption (as you say).
- thomasmallen 18y ago
  The point is you never actually ask for money. Have fine print that it's a donation if they do pay anything, but the program works perfectly with no warnings or anything of the sort, completely free. It's all a clever scheme though, and I didn't mean it in any seriousness. Now, back to my original comment, people tie prices closely to expectations as well as perceived quality.