2 ms·

> This is remedied by periodic re-verification of the usage purpose when in personal license mode. this "might" be remedied by periodic re-verification. again

by noodle 18y ago

> This is remedied by periodic re-verification of the usage purpose when in personal license mode. this "might" be remedied by periodic re-verification. again, you're fully relying on the individuals being honest and reporting their own usage. i'm just pointing out that your revenue stream is going to be inconsistent. with respect to lite/pro model, look at the 37signals products. they've definitely made headway with the pro/lite model. they don't strip away many features, but they also limit the product in other ways.

huhtenberg 18y ago
> you're fully relying on the individuals being honest and reporting their own usage Both models rely on this. Just keep in mind it's not a service, but an application. There's no way to enforce certain usage, so it comes down to whether you want dishonest users running a hacked version or the original app (and thus allow them an option of going straight at some point).
- noodle 18y ago
  there's a big difference between someone clicking "personal" on your popup to be dishonest on the personal/commercial license model, and someone spending the time to crack and reverse engineer your product to be dishonest with the lite/pro license model. i disagree with your assertion that there's no way to enforce certain usage.
  - huhtenberg 18y ago
    The difference is not as big as you might think. The end-user won't be cracking the protection himself. He'll just create an (implicit) demand for the crack and other people will create it. Absolutely all protected applications are broken within few months (or weeks) of the release. Even the most boring and virtually useless ones. That's a first-hand info from various shareware devs that I personally know; and it's also quite obvious from a trivial Google search for any given app. > i disagree with your assertion that there's no way to enforce certain usage. There is, of course, a way to enforce the usage, but effective protection very quickly becomes very ugly. Proper protection requires rootkit-like functionality, some untrivial code encryption and self-consistency checks, etc. And in the end it's all about fighting users that have their mind set on stealing. That's just pointless.
    - noodle 18y ago
      as you say, its about fighting users that have their mind set on stealing. the vast majority of people who actively steal your application have the mindset to steal it, and almost definitely wouldn't have paid you anyway. the point i'm trying to make is that the subset of people who are actively looking to steal your application is smaller than the subset of people who will passively steal it by not registering it as commercial. you're providing the "do you want to steal this application?" button straight away yourself, making anyone, whether their mind was set on stealing or not, have to actually make that choice. if you're looking to make money off of this, why would you even give your users that option?
      - huhtenberg 18y ago
        > the subset of people who are actively looking to steal your application is smaller than the subset of people who will passively steal it by not registering it as commercial Well, yeah, I hear you. Your conjecture is exactly what I'd like to validate. My guess is that it's not that much smaller and that a commercial trialing period may steer passive stealing crowd towards buying. Consider the case when a user is super happy with the application, the purchasing process is streamlined and he can in fact afford buying it. Do you think lots of people would cheat ? Especially considering he's a commercial user and the $$ come from company's pocket.
        noodle 18y ago
        i don't necessarily think a lot of people will cheat, but i think you're lumping two different types of trust into one. the one trust is trust that your users won't steal your stuff -- trust that they won't actively look to break the license. the second trust is the trust that your users will not be lazy or incompetent -- trust that they won't passively or accidentally break the license. with both personal/commercial licenses and lite/pro licenses, the people who break the first type of trust will always exist. you'll have your pirates and thieves no matter what. however, only with the personal/commercial licenses will you have the second group. only with personal/commercial licenses can you break the license without actively looking to do evil.

by noodle 18y ago

huhtenberg 18y ago

> you're fully relying on the individuals being honest and reporting their own usage Both models rely on this. Just keep in mind it's not a service, but an application. There's no way to enforce certain usage, so it comes down to whether you want dishonest users running a hacked version or the original app (and thus allow them an option of going straight at some point).

noodle 18y ago
there's a big difference between someone clicking "personal" on your popup to be dishonest on the personal/commercial license model, and someone spending the time to crack and reverse engineer your product to be dishonest with the lite/pro license model. i disagree with your assertion that there's no way to enforce certain usage.
- huhtenberg 18y ago
  The difference is not as big as you might think. The end-user won't be cracking the protection himself. He'll just create an (implicit) demand for the crack and other people will create it. Absolutely all protected applications are broken within few months (or weeks) of the release. Even the most boring and virtually useless ones. That's a first-hand info from various shareware devs that I personally know; and it's also quite obvious from a trivial Google search for any given app. > i disagree with your assertion that there's no way to enforce certain usage. There is, of course, a way to enforce the usage, but effective protection very quickly becomes very ugly. Proper protection requires rootkit-like functionality, some untrivial code encryption and self-consistency checks, etc. And in the end it's all about fighting users that have their mind set on stealing. That's just pointless.
  - noodle 18y ago
    as you say, its about fighting users that have their mind set on stealing. the vast majority of people who actively steal your application have the mindset to steal it, and almost definitely wouldn't have paid you anyway. the point i'm trying to make is that the subset of people who are actively looking to steal your application is smaller than the subset of people who will passively steal it by not registering it as commercial. you're providing the "do you want to steal this application?" button straight away yourself, making anyone, whether their mind was set on stealing or not, have to actually make that choice. if you're looking to make money off of this, why would you even give your users that option?
    - huhtenberg 18y ago
      > the subset of people who are actively looking to steal your application is smaller than the subset of people who will passively steal it by not registering it as commercial Well, yeah, I hear you. Your conjecture is exactly what I'd like to validate. My guess is that it's not that much smaller and that a commercial trialing period may steer passive stealing crowd towards buying. Consider the case when a user is super happy with the application, the purchasing process is streamlined and he can in fact afford buying it. Do you think lots of people would cheat ? Especially considering he's a commercial user and the $$ come from company's pocket.
      - noodle 18y ago
        i don't necessarily think a lot of people will cheat, but i think you're lumping two different types of trust into one. the one trust is trust that your users won't steal your stuff -- trust that they won't actively look to break the license. the second trust is the trust that your users will not be lazy or incompetent -- trust that they won't passively or accidentally break the license. with both personal/commercial licenses and lite/pro licenses, the people who break the first type of trust will always exist. you'll have your pirates and thieves no matter what. however, only with the personal/commercial licenses will you have the second group. only with personal/commercial licenses can you break the license without actively looking to do evil.