5 ms·

Shareware is not dead, but I would say the term 'shareware' is. These days it's just software. You have free software that gives you a limited user experience

by halviti 11y ago

Shareware is not dead, but I would say the term 'shareware' is. These days it's just software. You have free software that gives you a limited user experience or timed trial to decide if you want to buy the full thing. Look at any app store and look at the free rankings. It's practically full of nothing but "lite" versions that only exist to give you some features to help you decide whether you want to pay for the full version. If anything 'shareware' is more alive than ever although it goes by different names these days, 'lite', 'freemium', etc.

Lrigikithumer 11y ago
This might be true for the mobile market, however the PC market is a different beast entirely.
- the8472 11y ago
  On the PC you still get 30-day trials for professional software or apply-for-private-use-licence-leave-an-email models. It's not quite the same as the eternal winzip install on millions of PCs, but some people still make money that way.
  - pluma 11y ago
    Actually Sublime Text is a prime example for the WinZip model: you can use it with no limitations, but only for evaluation. You're meant to pay if you keep using it but other than a nagging popup and a note in the window title there are no restrictions.
    - dysfunction 11y ago
      The Reaper DAW (digital audio workstation) is another example. There's actually a lot of such 'nagware' in the audio world.
benihana 11y ago
I don't think I've seen someone type the word shareware in about 3 or 4 years. I don't think I've heard someone say shareware in at least fifteen years. But I think you're absolutely right: the spirit is there, it just goes by a different name.
eloisant 11y ago
The idea behind the word "shareware" is that you "shared" the demo version with your friends, and anyone who wants to buy a licence can. So now that we get everything from a direct download, it makes sense that the term "shareware" is no longer used. The concept of having the demo spreading organically as people share it is gone.
- auganov 11y ago
  Isn't invite-only software a similar concept?
  - miahi 11y ago
    Invite-only software (or service) is just a hidden social network.
- MPSimmons 11y ago
  I dunno. I mean, I tell everybody who will listen to me about CamScanner, a free app that scans documents to PDFs on your phone (android and ios). It saves me tons of time, and I share it with people - granted, they download it on their phone, but it's almost the same thing. I guess if you look at the social construct, it's similar, but in terms of distribution, bittorrent is probably the closest...but not as similar in terms of license ;-)
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Dunno, plenty of stuff that still depend on word of mouth even if it is sitting in an app store somewhere. Plenty of stuff i'm using on Android i found via people mentioning it on various forums etc.
- z3t4 11y ago
  Right, thinking about it, it could still work with very popular things like TV series. You release the whole season with bit-torrent to save bandwidth and marketing costs. Then after watching the first two episodes you have to pay for the rest. Sure there's no tech for that today, but hey startup idea!
davexunit 11y ago
>You have free software that gives you a limited user experience or timed trial to decide if you want to buy the full thing. "Free software" is already a well defined term, and it does not mean this. https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- icebraining 11y ago
  As much as I like the GNU philosophy, Free [as in price=0] Software is perfectly valid as well.
- astrodust 11y ago
  Yelling at clouds doesn't make them go away. The word "free" meaning "no cost" has been around a lot longer than GNU has. Re-defining what "free" means is an uphill battle, and not everyone agrees with this effort.
  - tajen 11y ago
    On a cultural note, it's fun to be aware that GNU doesn't mean the software must be costless. It's perfectly valid to sell an OSS for a fee, but you are required to provide the source code and your customer is free to sell/share it again. It's even written on the FSF's FAQ. I guess if you make something sufficiently "trade secret", your customer won't share it with the rest of the world.
dspillett 11y ago
I depends what you mean by shareware too. There were many who only considered software to be shareware if it was fully featured and non-expiring whether you paid or not, operating on an honour system. Search for "Association of Shareware Professionals" who were a group actively evangelising this approach. Anything else was referred to by them as demoware (or sometimes as the overly negative (IMO) term "crippleware"). Most of what you see in app stores would not fit this definition because features are missing or limited in the free versions. "Nagware" was usually "permitted" under the definition, if the request for license/donation wasn't obtrusive (i.e. no messages boxes that blocked operation and couldn't be closed until a timeout has passed). There are some current examples that probably qualify for the above description. SublimeText is the only one that springs immediately to mind but I'm sure there are others of significance I'm forgetting. Apps that are ad-sponsored but otherwise complete until you pay might be a grey area. Back when this discussion was happening "in my earshot" this part of the modern market simply didn't exist (at least not in anything like its current form).

by halviti 11y ago

Lrigikithumer 11y ago

This might be true for the mobile market, however the PC market is a different beast entirely.

the8472 11y ago
On the PC you still get 30-day trials for professional software or apply-for-private-use-licence-leave-an-email models. It's not quite the same as the eternal winzip install on millions of PCs, but some people still make money that way.
- pluma 11y ago
  Actually Sublime Text is a prime example for the WinZip model: you can use it with no limitations, but only for evaluation. You're meant to pay if you keep using it but other than a nagging popup and a note in the window title there are no restrictions.
  - dysfunction 11y ago
    The Reaper DAW (digital audio workstation) is another example. There's actually a lot of such 'nagware' in the audio world.

benihana 11y ago

I don't think I've seen someone type the word shareware in about 3 or 4 years. I don't think I've heard someone say shareware in at least fifteen years. But I think you're absolutely right: the spirit is there, it just goes by a different name.

eloisant 11y ago

The idea behind the word "shareware" is that you "shared" the demo version with your friends, and anyone who wants to buy a licence can. So now that we get everything from a direct download, it makes sense that the term "shareware" is no longer used. The concept of having the demo spreading organically as people share it is gone.

auganov 11y ago
Isn't invite-only software a similar concept?
- miahi 11y ago
  Invite-only software (or service) is just a hidden social network.
MPSimmons 11y ago
I dunno. I mean, I tell everybody who will listen to me about CamScanner, a free app that scans documents to PDFs on your phone (android and ios). It saves me tons of time, and I share it with people - granted, they download it on their phone, but it's almost the same thing. I guess if you look at the social construct, it's similar, but in terms of distribution, bittorrent is probably the closest...but not as similar in terms of license ;-)
digi_owl 11y ago
Dunno, plenty of stuff that still depend on word of mouth even if it is sitting in an app store somewhere. Plenty of stuff i'm using on Android i found via people mentioning it on various forums etc.
z3t4 11y ago
Right, thinking about it, it could still work with very popular things like TV series. You release the whole season with bit-torrent to save bandwidth and marketing costs. Then after watching the first two episodes you have to pay for the rest. Sure there's no tech for that today, but hey startup idea!

davexunit 11y ago

>You have free software that gives you a limited user experience or timed trial to decide if you want to buy the full thing. "Free software" is already a well defined term, and it does not mean this. https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

icebraining 11y ago
As much as I like the GNU philosophy, Free [as in price=0] Software is perfectly valid as well.
astrodust 11y ago
Yelling at clouds doesn't make them go away. The word "free" meaning "no cost" has been around a lot longer than GNU has. Re-defining what "free" means is an uphill battle, and not everyone agrees with this effort.
- tajen 11y ago
  On a cultural note, it's fun to be aware that GNU doesn't mean the software must be costless. It's perfectly valid to sell an OSS for a fee, but you are required to provide the source code and your customer is free to sell/share it again. It's even written on the FSF's FAQ. I guess if you make something sufficiently "trade secret", your customer won't share it with the rest of the world.

dspillett 11y ago

I depends what you mean by shareware too. There were many who only considered software to be shareware if it was fully featured and non-expiring whether you paid or not, operating on an honour system. Search for "Association of Shareware Professionals" who were a group actively evangelising this approach. Anything else was referred to by them as demoware (or sometimes as the overly negative (IMO) term "crippleware"). Most of what you see in app stores would not fit this definition because features are missing or limited in the free versions. "Nagware" was usually "permitted" under the definition, if the request for license/donation wasn't obtrusive (i.e. no messages boxes that blocked operation and couldn't be closed until a timeout has passed). There are some current examples that probably qualify for the above description. SublimeText is the only one that springs immediately to mind but I'm sure there are others of significance I'm forgetting. Apps that are ad-sponsored but otherwise complete until you pay might be a grey area. Back when this discussion was happening "in my earshot" this part of the modern market simply didn't exist (at least not in anything like its current form).