# Amazing Realization!!!! ........



## solrac (Jun 9, 2002)

Wait...
If I was a software company owner....

And my software made piracy completely impossible....

But I only had 10,000 users, that would suck.

Then what if I made all my software easily pirated....

and then in 2 years I have 1,000,000 users!!!

I still have my original 10,000 paid users.

But... out of the 1,000,000 non-paid pirated users.... 

say 10% of them decide to pay since piracy is bad and illegal......

Now I have 100,000 paid users!!! Piracy actually increased my business TENFOLD!!

So to have a successful software business you need two things:
1) Software that is EASY to pirate, like Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, and Mac OS X.
2) Massive amounts of anti-piracy literature to convince people to pay for the software!

We need both! We need anti-piracy taught to EVERYONE, and software that is SOO easy to pirate!

This makes MONEY PEOPLE!!!

Remember, the most powerful companies are the ones with the largest user base, period. Not the most amount of paid users.

And to prove my point... when I buy Photoshop later this year, I will be a new paid Adobe user. However if I never pirated Photoshop originally 2 years ago, they would NEVER have gotten any money from me this year!!!

Think about it!!!

now back to your regularly scheduled program.


----------



## themacko (Jun 9, 2002)

Wow, maybe Adobe should hire and promote you their board of directors....


----------



## solrac (Jun 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by themacko _
> *Wow, maybe Adobe should hire and promote you their board of directors.... *



I'm sure they already got someone who realized this a few years ago


----------



## themacko (Jun 9, 2002)




----------



## Koelling (Jun 9, 2002)

I often think I should be sending money to someone for the opensource software I use. In a perfect world software would be good enough that you would want to pay for it, even if you don't get anything more. I know that will never happen but it would be nice to think about.


----------



## edX (Jun 9, 2002)

wow koelling, you put a whole new spin on this topic - wanting to pay for software!! What are you thinking? 

I totally agree with you. I have begun to feel that way about more and more apps. Recently i paid for an app that i have used for years. The author is rather lenient about the issue and allows free use with a constant reminder to pay. But i was so excited that one of my favorite games got ported to osx, that i went and paid as soon as i had the measly $10. It turns out that the developer is a member of this site, recognized my name from here, worked on my suggestion in the comments box on purchase order, and now i am privy to a beta that works just like i wanted it to.  Wasn't that a great surprize?!!

hey, if i could get more of what i want from every app by paying for it, i would glady go ahead and pay for all those apps that aren't quite there yet - the ones i test and then discard. well, at least as many as i could afford.


----------



## toast (Jun 9, 2002)

Hi Ed, can I ask you what game you're talking about ?

Just -too- curious .

As for solrac, I've got a book for him:
<u>Wealth of Nations</u>, Adam Smith.
You need economic lessons, solrac. Much of them .


----------



## fryke (Jun 9, 2002)

Let's go back in time. Way back in time.

In the eighties, I had an Atari 1040 STf. I know, I know, but it was *much* cheaper than a Macintosh over here in Switzerland, and it had a larger and better screen than a Mac Plus, which was the cheapest Mac around when I bought the Atari.

There was no internet access for home users, and while there might have been some BBS, I didn't know about them back then.

Software piracy was about copying floppy disks between friends, and it meant that one would buy the software so that all of our friends had access to it. Basically, we arranged that on every birthday of one of my Atari friends, we would get - as a group - another part of the application-suite we would need.

Guess what happened when one of us bought the really great word processing application Signum! 2.0. We would all copy the app, we would all use it, for school work, too and: By the end of the year, each of us had a full version. Not because there was something wrong with the copied versions (other than that they were pirated, of course), but because a) the application was very good, b) the manual was actually useful and c) because we felt the developers actually earned our money!

The whole piracy issue could have been resolved very early on in the process by two measures:

1) Developers should have written bug-free, good (really good) applications.

2) Development companies should have charged reasonable amounts of money for their software.

They did not do so. At least a large part of them didn't. The rest, as they say, is history, but it's also our present situation. And this situation is that developers push out new versions of their software too early (unfinished, buggy), charge too much and make lousy manuals.

It's the same, really, with the music and movie industries. There are great exceptions there, however. Even with all the possibilities to download content (music, movies, other stuff), I still buy the CDs I'd have bought before those possibilities. And I still buy the DVDs I would have bought before. Why? Because they put something in it that can't really be downloaded: Good covers (yeah I know there are scans, but it's not the same thing) & booklets, bonus material on the DVDs and the like.

What I'm really waiting for is what internet content providers strive for: They want us to pay for information. They want to create news services that have 'added value' for which you pay monthly fees. What they don't see is the one thing that everybody *in* cyberspace knows ever since the term came about: Information wants to be free. I know this sounds like the hacker's credo, but it's really the truth. As soon as I *tell* a secret to somebody, even if he pays for it, the information is free. It *wants* to be free.

Versiontracker charges money for the services they gave to us for free a month ago. Yes, you also get *more* if you pay, but now you get *less* if you don't. Maybe it works out for them, but *I* won't pay. If I find somebody giving out account information for versiontracker, I guess I'll use that for free (piracy), because I think they can make their money with ads. Or, if I don't find that information, I'll use another service or I'll stick with what they still give me.

Similar thing: Avantgo. Was a great service for Palm users. Did let me read the news of c't's newsticker while I was on the way back home by train. Then they started to charge fees from the content provider (!) and c't wasn't willing to pay, thus I couldn't get the news anymore. What did happen was that I used iSilo and MobiPocket Reader instead of AvantGo. They just don't seem to understand the very, very simple fact, that information wants to be free.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 9, 2002)

> Wait...
> If I was a software company owner....
> 
> And my software made piracy completely impossible....
> ...



This is almost entirely wrong, because if the software is easy to piurate, the immoral people will pirate it rather than buying it, which they might have originally done. Therefore the company will actually lose money, cuz why pay for something when you can get it free just as easily?


----------



## solrac (Jun 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xaqintosh _
> *This is almost entirely wrong, because if the software is easy to piurate, the immoral people will pirate it rather than buying it, which they might have originally done. Therefore the company will actually lose money, cuz why pay for something when you can get it free just as easily? *



This is exactly what I am saying is WRONG. All the people that use the software for free only help the company. What would you rather have, 10 million people with your cool icon in your dock with only 1% of them paying for it, or only 10 thousand people with your cool icon in the dock and 100% of them paying for it? I'll take the 10 million any day. That's A HUNDRED THOUSAND paid users, and like EVERY computer user with my icon, and access to my information.

toast, I'll look for your book "Wealth of Nations" but sometimes common business sense, just plain horse sense, goes beyond  anything you could learn in college. Maybe you could summarize a tiny bit of what the book says before I get my hands on it?

fryke, whether or not you pay for version tracker does not matter. As long as you are on that site and a user, that's all that matters to them. What if 6 months from now they offer some service that you actually pay for? Again, proving that having a user base in general is much more important than having a paid user base.

Why do you think Microsoft bought Hotmail several years ago for FOUR HUNDRED MILLIONS dollars????? If such a purchase was made today it would probably hit the billion dollar mark. And guess what, hotmail is free. But they sell ads and charge for optional services.

If Adam Smith's book says this is not the case then I honestly think he's a dumbarse but I'll look into it.

edit: I looked up the book on Amazon. Ummm, that was published in 1766 and he is the "father of economics" and discussed basic principles of economics which back then were completely new.... okay, umm, the digital landscape is, like, completely different? Everything that applies to manual labor, land, and economics of a nation, especially 200 years ago, is completely irrelevant, even OPPOSITE, to software distribution and user base. If Adam Smith saw what happened to the stock market a couple years ago with Internet / tech stocks he would've sh*t bricks.


----------



## edX (Jun 9, 2002)

xaq - who are you talking to? are you still paying attention to solrac or have you joined in this new discussion about why we like and want to pay for our software - the truly amazing revelation.

I mean isn't it about time we approached this tired subject from the other side. instead of "what's right or wrong about pirating?", how about "what's good or bad about paying for the software" and why do those of us who try to support our developers want to do so in the first place.


----------



## solrac (Jun 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *xaq - who are you talking to? are you still paying attention to solrac or have you joined in this new discussion about why we like and want to pay for our software - the truly amazing revelation.
> 
> I mean isn't it about time we approached this tired subject from the other side. instead of "what's right or wrong about pirating?", how about "what's good or bad about paying for the software" and why do those of us who try to support our developers want to do so in the first place. *



Hey I've paid for lots of software that was like $10 or so. Not all the time but when a shareware app is really cool and the guy wants a few bucks, he'll get it from me.

I also sent a few bucks as donation to someone who runs "the real backup server" on carracho because it lets like 100 users download stuff at 70k per second!! 

Hope I find that one again.....


----------



## nkuvu (Jun 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *And this situation is that developers push out new versions of their software too early (unfinished, buggy), charge too much and make lousy manuals.*


Just have to add in my two copper plated zinc bits.

Software developers today are under _huge_ pressures to release software quickly -- management makes outrageous timelines, and is surprised when the software takes longer.  As most of us know, the first product available on the software market has a better chance of becoming the standard.  So releasing a commercial application six months later than the other company is considered suicide.

The other thing is that a lot of software is very complicated to test and debug properly.  I'm not saying it can't be done, but it takes time.  And all too frequently in the software world testers are looked on as a lower life form than developers.  Even in large companies, the software is only tested to a bare minimum.  Documentation is the last thing on a developer's mind, and many write no documentation at all.

I write a lot of Perl scripts for use within my company -- and I spend about a week to develop a simple 100 line script.  It takes time to make quality software, and most management people don't understand that at all.

That's all I wanted to say.


----------



## solrac (Jun 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nkuvu _
> *
> Just have to add in my two copper plated zinc bits.
> 
> ...



This is most true in the video game world. Crappy video games are almost ALWAYS because the product was rushed to market. I don't think Adobe suffers from this though. Macromedia probably does though


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 10, 2002)

> xaq - who are you talking to? are you still paying attention to solrac or have you joined in this new discussion about why we like and want to pay for our software - the truly amazing revelation.
> 
> I mean isn't it about time we approached this tired subject from the other side. instead of "what's right or wrong about pirating?", how about "what's good or bad about paying for the software" and why do those of us who try to support our developers want to do so in the first place.



yeah, I was talking to solrac, I was arguing with his logic which I believe to be majorly flawed.


----------



## .dev.lqd (Jun 10, 2002)

Solrac... my only question to you is who are you attempting to convince?

Are you trying to be a software piracy evangelist? To encourage others to pirate software? Why do you care?

Are you trying to convince yourself of your own innocence?

Or, are you trying to repair your reputation in our eyes?


The only point I want to make is this... your deeds are your own. I make no character judgement on you for pirating software. Your posts, however, seem to be trying to convince me that you have just cause to commit piracy. Why you are trying to do this is the issue that causes me to question your character. 

Piracy is stealing. If you can cope with this and still sleep at night that's fine. If your guilt causes you to seek legal open source solutions, that's great too. It's also fine if you are working up to paying for the software. I make no judgement on any of this.

The only point I want to reiterate, ad nauseum, is that piracy is stealing. I argue that fact. Not its merit to the economy or moral Circ De Sole. You are still circumventing contractual obligations you agree to when you install and use the software.


----------



## alexachucarro (Jun 10, 2002)

That's what a lot of companies already do. I'm not sure about Adobe, but once I was in an Adobe seminar in Sydney and the Adobe bloke asked "who here has Photoshop on their HD?" just about everyone did. her then asked "who has a legal copy?" most laughed and people started to, sheepishly, put their hands down.

But one thing i DO know, is i know someone who knows a developer at Alias|Wavefront and THEY are the people who let out the Maya crack for OSX! Supprising? no not really. They know that NO student could afford £6'500 (now a lot less and now the PLE Version is out), but they wanted students to learn the product, so what do they do?...

I know people who have started up a company or got rich from working in the industries and started buying the software they already have on their HD. It's not something I 100$ agree with, but it sort of works.

It['s the same with Mexicans smuggling themselves into the US. If it was stopped, the South's economy would bugger a bit as a lot of the jobs noone wants to do, would get done, so they try to stop them here and there, just to create a presence but blind eyes are turned.


----------



## vanguard (Jun 10, 2002)

I heard Steve Ballmer quoted as saying something along those lines.  He said, "We don't want anybody to steal software.  However, if they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours."

The context was his approach for getting into oversees markets.  He wants them to steal windows then he'll make them pay for it after they grow to like it.

Vanguard


----------



## solrac (Jun 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by .dev.lqd _
> *Solrac... my only question to you is who are you attempting to convince?
> 
> Are you trying to be a software piracy evangelist? To encourage others to pirate software? Why do you care?
> ...



Thank you. No. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or repair my reputation as it needs no repairing. I'm just letting my opinion be known. Isn't that what a forum is for? And I agree with everything you say. That's my point. Adobe NEEDS you just as much as it NEEDS me. The combination of YOU and ME is what makes money.

I pirate the software. I don't care too much. I know it's stealing but to me it's like jaywalking. However I learn it and hope to buy it one day.

YOU remind constantly how it's horrible and stealing. You will make sure I buy it one day.

Put two and two together. Without people like you that remind people like us that it's illegal, we might not buy it. But I will surely buy it as soon as I can, partly because of your insight.

Read Alex Chucarro's post, that is sooo true, about the immigrants. It's a perfect analogy. And I'm not surprised if Alias | Wavefront released a crack for it's own software (Maya). I got that crack. I haven't BEGUN to learn 3D yet. I want to, and I will ONLY because I got that crack. I'm definetely not going to school to learn 3D. And it has to be Maya because that would get me the jobs if I move to that field. Because Maya is the standard for high end.

But thanks to you (.dev.lqd) and all the anti-piracy legislation, Alias can be sure I'll pay for Maya as soon as I can afford it.


----------



## solrac (Jun 10, 2002)

Thank you. No. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or repair my reputation as it needs no repairing. I'm just letting my opinion be known. Isn't that what a forum is for? And I agree with everything you say. That's my point. Adobe NEEDS you just as much as it NEEDS me. The combination of YOU and ME is what makes money.

I pirate the software. I don't care too much. I know it's stealing but to me it's like jaywalking. However I learn it and hope to buy it one day.

YOU remind constantly how it's horrible and stealing. You will make sure I buy it one day.

Put two and two together. Without people like you that remind people like us that it's illegal, we might not buy it. But I will surely buy it as soon as I can, partly because of your insight.

Read Alex Chucarro's post, that is sooo true, about the immigrants. It's a perfect analogy. And I'm not surprised if Alias | Wavefront released a crack for it's own software (Maya). I got that crack. I haven't BEGUN to learn 3D yet. I want to, and I will ONLY because I got that crack. I'm definetely not going to school to learn 3D. And it has to be Maya because that would get me the jobs if I move to that field. Because Maya is the standard for high end.

But thanks to you (.dev.lqd) and all the anti-piracy legislation, Alias can be sure I'll pay for Maya as soon as I can afford it.


----------



## alexachucarro (Jun 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *
> 
> Read Alex Chucarro's post, *



please change that mate. It's Achucarro (really its Achúcarro). please don't misspell my name!


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jun 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *
> Why do you think Microsoft bought Hotmail several years ago for FOUR HUNDRED MILLIONS dollars????? If such a purchase was made today it would probably hit the billion dollar mark. And guess what, hotmail is free. But they sell ads and charge for optional services.
> *


They did that to create the impression that more people supported Passport (and later .NET) than really did. Seriously, I had my Hotmail account before the purchase (fond memories of the service crashing almost every day for a week as they switched from UNIX to NT servers) and after it, I suddenly had a Passport account, and later the ability to sign on to MSN messenger, and now a .NET account. Seriously, this bothers me: I do not want to give up my hotmail account (though sadly it has become my junk account, for when I sign up for things that I know will give me SPAM) but at the same time I was purposely wanting to NOT have a Passport account, or .NET for that matter. I hate M$, I got Office free from my school, but I practically never use it. I only sign on to MSN messenger service when I use Fire, because I figured "what the heck, may as well use it". You're right, companies realize that what matters most is the _USER_ base, not the customer base. The customer base earns them $$ now, but it is the USER base that can still be harvested.


----------



## threesixty (Jun 11, 2002)

I agree with the original post. Big companies like Microsoft , Adobe etc ... actively turn a blind eye to piracy as long as its not on a corporate level (i.e. businesses running pirated software).

People who use pirated software while they have no money and are students etc.. are more likely to buy it when they do have money or recommend it to be bought by the company they work for. Thats why Microsoft Office has destroyed all the competition.

Whatever you get used to using, you will more likely use it forever and get other people to use it as well.

Thats why banks target kids and students with no money.

And its the overwhelming factor as to why people use PC's. Lots of pirate software available, you can own a PC and never have to buy ANY SOFTWARE!!!

The only problem with this approach is it requires the software company to have a lot of dough in the bank to take the losses initially, so they can make the money back later.  Thats why a lot of companies have been pissed off at Microsoft. They can afford to give things away for free, let them be pirated etc.. and make their money years later when they have overwhelming market share. They have so much money that they can make their products actually work the best through spending tons on programmers/research. So when it comes down to a moral issue between IE & Netscape people have to admit that IE is actually alot better.

Smaller companies just cant afford that type of situation and need to get paid earlier. Which is why smaller companies in software are so up in arms about low level piracy (u + me) because it really does put them out of business.  They then get caught up in the overpricing game so they can recoup costs and then get undercut by the big boys (Microsoft again!!!). Its a vicous circle!!

I think the way you get rid of piracy is by keep giving huge updates that require you to registerd. If the apps are "life changing" apps, stuff that you cant afford to live without, then you will buy it to get the "great" upgrades that you need to live your life by. The software actually needs to be VALUABLE to you, something that alot of software isnt these days!!


----------



## edX (Jun 11, 2002)

> So when it comes down to a moral issue between IE & Netscape people have to admit that IE is actually alot better.



i do not have to admit that. i will *not* admit that. furthermore i find it shortsighted to compare two demons and decide which one is more moral. as if either even knows the definition of the word moral. there are plenty of options out there besides these two. and there are ways to spend your money that do not support either. Spending money is a political vote for a way of life - for furthering the existence and development of the things you want in life. spend your money wisely. spend it with developers you would like to see around in 10 yrs and not with those who you would like to see fail. spend your time the same way. and using warez is still an investment of time. at least invest it in something you believe in and not just what is currently 'standard'. standards change, but only when people work at making them change rather than blindly following the leaders of the day. Personally, i hope my grandkids will ask me "what was a microsoft?"


----------



## threesixty (Jun 11, 2002)

Sometimes I wish computing could still be that small cosy group in the early eighties where everything was done for love. But It isnt. Software is so complicated now, users expect so much which means everything costs MONEY!! Therefore every company in the business is there there to make MONEY!! There isnt any other reason to spend 20hrs a day debugging C++ code. So please dont say that Microsoft/Netscape et al are demon companies. They are companies with workers who have mortgages and kids and need to make money to survive in this world. These companies have the right to do whatever they wish with what they have produced, just as I should have the right to give away a program I wrote as shareware if I want. Or if I want to package two products together that I wrote I should be able to so that, Its my RIGHT!!

The truth is there ARENT many other companies that can compete with MS and NETSCAPE and other large firms. Programs are just TOO complicated. They require too much money to develop and the public expect a lot more out of free stuff, let alone paid for sofware. 

Oracle, Compaq, Dell have just a bad record as Microsoft but they arent as smart cos they havent succeeded where MS has. They built the firms from nothing and deserve their success. There are no "real" morals in business just as there arent in any war...


----------



## Edge100 (Jun 11, 2002)

I have been watching this discussion patiently, waiting to chime in.

My two cents:

I have to agree with Solrac in some ways.  Take mp3s, for instance.  The computer industry exploded in the late-90s because people bought faster computers with faster CD burners so they could download and burn mp3s.  If all of a sudden mp3s went away, where would that have left the computer manufacturers?  All this new technology and no reason to sell it.  You can bet there was a HUGE lobby from the computer makers to the RIAA.  

Although the distribution of someone elses artistic work in mp3 form is illegal, there is a symbiosis that Solrac captures well in his post.  The artist sells 50 000 CDs, 100% copy-protected CDs and makes $1 million (for instance).  Or, the artist sells the same 50,000 CDs (because the HONEST people still buy it) with no copy protection.  The CD gets distributed to 500 000 people on the Internet and convinces an extra 5,000 people to buy it (only 1% return on distribution).  Music piracy has helped the artist and the record company.  These types of scenarios happen; it has happened to me.  I have downloaded Divx movies which I have enjoyed and then gone out and bought the DVD.

I have also done this with software.  It is silly to think that software developers do not want piracy.  Eventually, some of the pirates will become paying customers (if only to get a decent copy of the manual or to feel better about themselves).


----------



## solrac (Jun 11, 2002)

> _...
> 
> The truth is there ARENT many other companies that can compete with MS and NETSCAPE and other large firms. Programs are just TOO complicated. They require too much money to develop and the public expect a lot more out of free stuff, let alone paid for sofware.[/B]_


_

That's bull. One lone programmer can compete with Microsoft. Why? Because programs that are too complicated and NEED 100 people working on it is not always the way.

Sometimes I'm tired of all the bloat in a program I'll never use. If a team of two guys made a super awesome program that is light, simple, fast, and fun to use, it could beat Microsoft's version easily.

Where microsoft really has it down is standards. A .doc file has become standard, for instance. It's just what everyone has. So a word processing program that can't open or use doc files has no chance, basically.

But still, I think anyone can beat the big guys, with the right software that is better when simpler._


----------



## fryke (Jun 11, 2002)

edge100 said:



> Although the distribution of someone elses artistic work in mp3 form is illegal, there is a symbiosis that Solrac captures well in his post. The artist sells 50 000 CDs, 100% copy-protected CDs and makes $1 million (for instance). Or, the artist sells the same 50,000 CDs (because the HONEST people still buy it) with no copy protection. The CD gets distributed to 500 000 people on the Internet and convinces an extra 5,000 people to buy it (only 1% return on distribution). Music piracy has helped the artist and the record company.



Hmm... Nope. People usually don't browse for artists they don't know yet. They download music they've heard on TV or on the radio. So it's TV and the radio who do the job, not piracy.

This doesn't however kill solrac's statement, which is true, because the software market REALLY works that way. It's also the reason why people make their new software available as free betas and charge for the final versions. Good way. If Adobe had released betas of Photoshop 7 for free, many Mac users would have switched to OS X earlier. Apple should have paid Adobe to do just that.


----------



## roger (Jun 11, 2002)

> That's bull. One lone programmer can compete with Microsoft. Why? Because programs that are too complicated and NEED 100 people working on it is not always the way.



Microsoft don't write programs - they create products. The applications are just part of an product. It takes a lot more resource to create a product. An application needs to be supported by documentation and a support function. A business is not very likely at all to invest in a software solution that is not supported, and that is why they very rarely purchase software from a lone developer, even if it does what they want better and is cheaper. They could get seriously burnt if they rely on that software and something like OSX happens and the developer decides that they don't want to upgrade the software.

Lone programmers have a (shareware/niche) market for people like you and me at home (or small business), but they are not really going to compete seriously for the business market. Yeah, there might be exceptions, but that is what they are - exceptions.



> Where microsoft really has it down is standards. A .doc file has become standard, for instance. It's just what everyone has. So a word processing program that can't open or use doc files has no chance, basically.



I totally agree with you.



> But still, I think anyone can beat the big guys, with the right software that is better when simpler.



Say you have the right software, you need to go and get funding, and then employ people to sell the product, develop it, support it, create documentation and then what do you have - a company that is one of the smaller big boys. If you don't you won't go beyond version 1.

I agree that there are less barriers to entering the software market compared to traditional manufacturing industries, but it is still necessary to invest to sustain the revenue of the product.

R.


----------



## threesixty (Jun 11, 2002)

"Sometimes I'm tired of all the bloat in a program I'll never use. If a team of two guys made a super awesome program that is light, simple, fast, and fun to use, it could beat Microsoft's version easily."

Listen mate, the days of lone programmers making big apps like Word, Photoshop, Pro Tools etc.. are long gone. Yeah you can make a small useful application like Winamp or something, but trust me, you cannot write those huge apps. (Which incidently is where all the money is). 

Alot of the code you refer to as bloat is there because users like you and me want to open a file we made in 1994 on a program in 2002!! And do you think that Alti-Vec processing, the latest Rage graphics card etc.. make programs less complicated to write??
You must be joking. 

Everything that could be written has been written on a computer. Anything comming out in the future will only be possible because of new technology (which usually makes it even harder to write, not easier) , or some divine inspiration from God.

Having said, I do think that anyone who gets in with OS X early and starts designing some killer apps for it, is gonna make a lot of money. There is alot of scope to do apps in OS X and get paid for it because the PC software industry is already saturated. There is huge potential for this machine outside of the usual creative industries (i.e business software, scientific etc..) . Its the only platform that can give XP a run for its money and you can tell who the big business software companies want to back  ... Sybase, Oracle, Sun etc.. are probably praying that business start to adopt Apple instead of MS. OS X is definetely gonna be the platform I write for when I get a chance...


----------



## evildan (Jun 11, 2002)

Speaking from the music perspective. I have a lot of friends who are musicians.( Donny Brazile )

Any, for those of you who don't know, they don't get paid a lot. It is very much a labor of love. Even very popular musicians don't see a lot of the money generated from album sales.

I'd like to see the internet help musicians out.

Provide a vehicle for distabution for them. Eliminate the record companies all together. Allow the musicians to make money off advertisement and free distribution of their music will drive the people to the site.

I realize it's a dream, but any way we can directly put money in the pockets of those who actually create the music I'm in favor for.

The fact is record companies use to provide a service, a very reasonable one at that. They could distribute a record on a global scale. No singel artist had the ability prior to the internet. Now, all I need is internet access and a server to post my music to, oh and one more thing good music.

That's the other thing, the internet removes the power from some person at the record company and forces better music from the artists.

Honestly, do you think the boy bands would make it on musical talent alone? It would actually be a good thing.

However (and this is a BIG however)... 
I don't see this happening for software anytime soon. I just don't see the same crowds. To make the comparison, that would mean that the programmers were somehow getting shorted, which I believe they are not. They get paid very well. Of course software companies do have the ability to make even a bad program the standard, (ie explorer, etc). But shareware really makes it possible for me to disband from the norm and get my own software (ie iCab instead of Explorer).


----------



## roger (Jun 11, 2002)

well put.

R.


----------



## toast (Jun 11, 2002)

You won't have to hack CodeWarrior to do this now 

I read in a post:<b>
"Big companies like Microsoft , Adobe etc ... actively turn a blind eye to piracy as long as its not on a corporate level (i.e. businesses running pirated software)."</b>

Which is true. That's why the mess we had a week ago about Adobe Online collecting serials at install had no sense.

Anyway, if I'm learning a lot about what you all think, there's one point nobody (even solrac ) cannot turn their back to: <b>piracy is illegal, because piracy is stealing.</b>

To the people who still argue about it, I recommend they learn from the Linux/Unix community, where <b>everything</b> that exists in the paying-world exists in free.


----------



## ladavacm (Jun 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *To the people who still argue about it, I recommend they learn from the Linux/Unix community, where <b>everything</b> that exists in the paying-world exists in free. *



No, it doesn't.  

Otherwise, I would not be typing this on a Mac, but would continue to use FreeBSD laptop running MS-Office in a VMware session.  That was way too much hassle.

Mind you, I'm still lacking things, and will have to get the VirtualPC once it becomes halfway usable.


----------



## solrac (Jun 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ladavacm _
> *
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> ...



What do you find that is on windows but not on mac??????


----------



## satanicpoptart (Jun 11, 2002)

no matter how hard it is to pirate software, it always gets done. look at final cut pro.  if you distribute something on a cd then your going to get it copied over and over again.


----------



## Edge100 (Jun 11, 2002)

I think we can all agree that stealing is wrong.  And piracy is stealing.  Even Solrac can see this, no?

But that isnt really the point.  Your own moral code should tell you whether or not piracy is ok for you.  What is being questioned here is whether or not the large companies condone piracy in certain circumstances because it increases their installed base (if not their cash flow).

I contend that it absolutely is condoned.  Software companies would be out of their minds to prevent new recruits from using software that they cannot (yet) afford.  Eventually, they'll have the money and they buy the software.  This isnt true in all cases, but even if only 10% of the people do this, the company wins!


----------



## dave17lax (Jun 11, 2002)

uh I am one of those that will hear a new song (mp3) and go buy the album. About a month ago I bought a cd that I had all the songs for already. Don't just generalize by saying that most mp3's on a HD are "oldies" that we already know. In that case, why would the record companies care? We've already bought that music, right? Wrong. Truthfully, most of my mp3's are singles that I would never buy, whether or not I had a copy of it through skulduggery.

One exception: I can't find the new ***** album, can someone .sit it and email to me?


----------



## solrac (Jun 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dave17lax _
> *uh I am one of those that will hear a new song (mp3) and go buy the album. About a month ago I bought a cd that I had all the songs for already. Don't just generalize by saying that most mp3's on a HD are "oldies" that we already know. In that case, why would the record companies care? We've already bought that music, right? Wrong. Truthfully, most of my mp3's are singles that I would never buy, whether or not I had a copy of it through skulduggery.
> 
> One exception: I can't find the new Gourds album, can someone .sit it and email to me? *



I will never buy a CD again, unless it is a rare exception where I'm a very very big fan. I just simply will never pay for music again. LOL.

Why buy a CD for one song when the other 10 songs are no good? The duplication and printing and stuff is worth no more than a few bucks. Why pay $20 for a CD? Technology has gone past the record industry.

If someone would set up a site where I could download any mp3 in perfect quality with all the correct ID3 tags for $1 per song, I'd buy music from there all the time, legally.


----------



## edX (Jun 11, 2002)

dave17lax - i took out the name of the band you were asking for. please don't ask for people to participate in file sharing of copyrighted material here. talk about doing it all you want, just realize this isn't Carracho or Limewire.


----------



## dave17lax (Jun 11, 2002)

that was a joke


----------



## edX (Jun 11, 2002)

dave - it wasn't clear to me so i guessed it might not be to others. better safe than sorry. no harm. just trying to make it clear how we're going to be viewing this subject of sharing copyrighted material - we're just not going to participate in it thru this site. 

 the name of the band certainly wasn't the offensive part. it was just easiest for me to edit so then nobody would know and be able to comply.


----------



## solrac (Jun 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *dave - it wasn't clear to me so i guessed it might not be to others. better safe than sorry. no harm. just trying to make it clear how we're going to be viewing this subject of sharing copyrighted material - we're just not going to participate in it thru this site.
> 
> the name of the band certainly wasn't the offensive part. it was just easiest for me to edit so then nobody would know and be able to comply. *



Sorry Ed I saw the name of the band. it was 5 letters and started with "G"  . I sent him the whole album as well as Photoshop and Illustrator. Heheh just kidding


----------



## dave17lax (Jun 11, 2002)

Thanks solrac, but I only pirate MUSIC!

***** rule!


----------



## solrac (Jun 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dave17lax _
> *Thanks solrac, but I only pirate MUSIC!
> 
> ***** rule! *



someone should start a band called "Pirate Me"


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jun 11, 2002)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I like to eventually get the CDs. I have 5000+ songs on my external HD, and yes, most of them were downloaded. However, that means that most of them are 128 bitrate, or worse. This is a big deal to me: try the song *Magic Carpet Ride* by Steppenwolf on CD, then 128 bitrate mp3. there IS a difference! Maybe you don't noticeesp. if your speaker are/is not that goodbut I have SoundSticks, so I notice. All mp3's I record are highest quality VBR, ensuring no noticeable (to my ears) difference between mp3 and CD. Also, I listen to a lot of non-mainstream music (Seven Nations, Great Big Sea, Blackthorn, Neil Anderson, Splendourbog, Toy-Box, Aqua, etc...) and the songs I come across tend to be lower quality. So, I either buy the CD, ask for it for Birthday/X-mas, or borrow it from a friend if I can. I like replacing downloaded songs with my own rips, just for the quality.


----------



## solrac (Jun 11, 2002)

I'm exactly the opposite! I have a bag of like 100 CDs I want to encode to MP3 so I can throw away or sell all the CDs!!!

The CDs are useless!!!

I've listened to CD vs MP3 at 128 kbps hundreds of times the past couple years on high quality speakers all around, and I could never EVER hear a difference.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 12, 2002)

I di dnot know toy-box made any second or third albums lol 
I only heard their debut one


----------



## ladavacm (Jun 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *
> I've listened to CD vs MP3 at 128 kbps hundreds of times the past couple years on high quality speakers all around, and I could never EVER hear a difference. *



It appears that your hearing is damaged, then.  The obvious difference is in cymbals, especially crashes and ride.  It gets much worse if cymbals have been digitally spread, which requires wide bandwidth noise with 100 percent accurate reproduction of phase.

Depth perception of classical music is completely destroyed, too.


----------



## solrac (Jun 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ladavacm _
> *
> 
> It appears that your hearing is damaged, then.  The obvious difference is in cymbals, especially crashes and ride.  It gets much worse if cymbals have been digitally spread, which requires wide bandwidth noise with 100 percent accurate reproduction of phase.
> ...



Actually my hearing is fine. It's a psychological impact. I listen to a lot of acoustic / flamenco guitar music which is veryyy easy to screw up in compression. It plays perfect, crystal clear, perfection on my iPod or anyone's PC with good speakers.

The only time I ever heard a difference was because the mp3 was screwed up. Downloading another copy or re-doing it fixed it.


----------



## roger (Jun 12, 2002)

I can hear the difference - I don't like ripping at 128MB. It isn't psychological because I really didn't except to hear any difference because I used to use 56k MP3's through my computer speakers all the time. However as soon as I started playing mp3's through my stereo I kept hearing anomolies. I tried and experiment ripping at 56k, 128k, 192k and 320k and I could not believe the difference. Now I recommend that everyone rip at max quality even if they can't hear the difference because they might if/when they upgrade their stereo equipment.

R.


----------



## xoot (Jun 12, 2002)

320k is overkill. 128k is better.


----------



## rinse (Jun 12, 2002)

i find 192 to be adequate for listening to on a quality stereo... 128 is a bit squashed sounding.


----------



## QuackingPenguin (Jun 12, 2002)

> dave17lax - i took out the name of the band you were asking for. please don't ask for people to participate in file sharing of copyrighted material here. talk about doing it all you want, just realize this isn't Carracho or Limewire



I say AGAIN



> Ok..i have a little problem here, with what 'Ed' said. He said is warning people, basically not to ask where to get/ask for warez/music from. Now, my point is, doesn't the whole notion of being told what we can and can't ask for mean that we no longer have the right to free speech? Sure, it may be wrong to distribute warez/music etc, but surely thats the decision of the person looking for it, the person supplying it, and the developer to stop the process. If the moderators/admins on these boards think that asking for/supplying warez/music etc, is wrong, why not contact the developers and tell them whats going on, let them do something about it, we all know metallica would be jumping at the chance to rape another little guy just to say they 'stopped' internet piracy. After all, if we cant say something as an 'anonymous' user on the internet, where can we speak freely?



I have something to add.

If the admins here decide that telling them what they're doing is wrong, and that they want to delete my account and or my posts, just remember, it will only serve to prove my point, and as i said to someone who 'stole' a yahoo account i had: "whoopdy-shit, an online account. like i cant make another one."


----------



## toast (Jun 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *I've listened to CD vs MP3 at 128 kbps hundreds of times the past couple years on high quality speakers all around, and I could never EVER hear a difference. *



At 128kbps:
Try encoding any of Brian Eno's ambient albums: you'll hear a 50% bass cut, as well as missing fade-outs in the upper keyboards.
Or just try any Lee Konitz / Keith Jarret / Pat Metheny to hear same thing. If you prefer trying with progressive rock bands: Soft Machine, King Crimson. With techno: Cygnus X, Jeff Mills.

I encode at 160kbps and still have some loss on jazz bass 
But of course the CD is not far away


----------



## rinse (Jun 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> * try the song Magic Carpet Ride by Steppenwolf on CD, then 128 bitrate mp3. *



ummm... no thanks.  

there is no accounting for taste though, i guess.


----------



## boi (Jun 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by QuackingPenguin _
> *
> 
> I say AGAIN
> ...



have you actually thought this out, or are you just a blind 'free-speech no matter what' advocate? perhaps you just like stirring, nay, beating the pot. free speech has its limits, and those limits are to protect other laws that are meant to protect the people and companies.
let's say the mods do decide to let everyone say what they want on the messageboards. this is what will happen:
people will request pirated software and music.
people will send it.
more people will come to the boards just to want pirated software and music.
the people who come here for tech help will be drowned out by the pirated software requests/answers.
a new forum will be created for 'pirated software requests'.
adobe or some font company will shut it down.
it starts over again.


you CAN request warez, bud. you can speak your mind, too. there's a time and a place for everything, though. this is a forum for mac enthusiasts, not mac thieves.

pz

[ boi ]


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jun 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by rinse _
> *
> ummm... no thanks.
> 
> there is no accounting for taste though, i guess.  *


I was using it as an example... I rarely listen to that song, as I mentioned I have over 5000 others on my external HD. In fact, I probably should never have participated in this conversation, seeing as how I dislike much of the music I have (of course I like a lot too) and I only keep songs of the 'rap' (in my mind missing the preceding 'c')variety, along with others I don't like, to be a sort of music source for my friends, and anyone else who wants some music.
To continue somewhat on topic, however, people will always want CDs. Maybe a few of you don't, but for the truly 'starving' artists out there who make decent $ off of each CD cause they sell the CDs themselves online, the people who search hard enough for those bands will want an actual CD. This is why I love mp3.com, you search for, say *Barenaked Ladies*, and you click on the "Similar Artists" link, and you find a band like Splendourbog. they have a few songs (whole songs, mind you) on there, you like some of them, you want more, you buy the CD. Or Seven Nations. they have cruddy mp3s of 3 songs from one album, but the files are good enough for you to decide if you like the music. That's what it comes down to: the bands that need $$ from the CDs get it... the big names that get $$ other ways (tours, advertising deals, etc....) don't take much of a financial hit. The record companies may lose out, but other than themselves, who cares? they aren't needed anymore.


----------



## ksv (Jun 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *
> 
> Actually my hearing is fine. It's a psychological impact. I listen to a lot of acoustic / flamenco guitar music which is veryyy easy to screw up in compression. It plays perfect, crystal clear, perfection on my iPod or anyone's PC with good speakers.
> ...



Get some really good speakers, and you'll  hear the difference 
On normal PC speakers or even good headphones, the difference isn't that big, because they aren't able to reproduce very low- or high-frequent sounds correctly anyway. 
I used to rip at 192 kbps, and it's acceptable, but I can hear a clear difference from the original. That was one of my reasons to get a 100 GB hard drive


----------



## dseltzer (Jun 16, 2002)

There's no doubt the reasons I pay for shareware and commercial software are rooted in my hypertrophied conscience. But, while I think software developers *should* be compensated for all their time and effort, I think there are several other important points to make about this.

First, the developer probablly really needs to income, and s/he has earned it if a quality product comes to distribution. Second, wasn't the whole premise of shareware to allow one to "try before you buy?" But if one continues to use the product, one tells friends and acquaintences. Sure, some of them get pirated copies, but many, if not most want their own copy *and* the documentation, not to mention the ability to get updates. You get the idea, I'm sure.

A recent, related example is Napster. Did you know that when Napster was at its peak, CD *sales* got to an all time high. Not only that, but once it was shut down, CD sales plummeted 40%!!! What's that tell us???? And just how might this figure into Microsoft's strategy of free software? Does it not significantly increase he installed base and thus MS's overall market position and strength?

For me, the bottom line is that worrying about software piracy is a classic example of being penny wise and pound foolish, as well as very short sighted. Sure, pirated software means the producer makes less on direct sales, at least at first. BUT...   in the long run, the ability for people to share software, lets many people try it who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. Those same people, if impressed with the product/s, will eventually want their own copy... their own manual, access to tech support, notification of updates, etc., etc. And they're going to tell their friends, who tell theirs... and in the long run the software maker will sell more units than they ever could have if people had no way to try the product for free. Obviously, I'm of the mind that the whole piracy debate is a tempest in a teapot.

My question, at this point,  is to the software vendors. Do you want to make as much money as quickly as you can, or wouldn't you rather work towards establishing a broad base of good PR and customer support that can sustain your business into the future?        DUH!!!


----------



## toast (Jun 16, 2002)

Question:
<b>Do you want to make as much money as quickly as you can, or wouldn't you rather work towards establishing</b>

Answer:

Adobe works on a broad base. $10 shareware programmers make money as quick as they can, for they eat everyday as we do.


----------



## Annihilatus (Jun 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xaqintosh _
> *
> 
> This is almost entirely wrong, because if the software is easy to piurate, the immoral people will pirate it rather than buying it, which they might have originally done. Therefore the company will actually lose money, cuz why pay for something when you can get it free just as easily? *



I have to disagree here. I'm a Windows user living in a world where EVERYTHING can be pirated. However, when I was satisfied with XP, Office and Frontpage, I bought all three believing that I want to support a company that makes good products. I know I'll be blasted for the previous line but these three products are remarkably good compared to the sh*t released for the past few years.

So even ex-hardcore wareze'ers want to change.

Andre


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jun 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dseltzer _
> *Sure, some of them get pirated copies, but many, if not most want their own copy *and* the documentation, not to mention the ability to get updates. You get the idea, I'm sure.
> 
> ...   in the long run, the ability for people to share software, lets many people try it who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. Those same people, if impressed with the product/s, will eventually want their own copy... their own manual, access to tech support, notification of updates, etc., etc. And they're going to tell their friends, who tell theirs... and in the long run the software maker will sell more units than they ever could have if people had no way to try the product for free.
> *


I see 3 problems with this argument:
1) The current degradation of morality in our society. Criminal activity is more socially acceptable than ever (my impression from many sources) and this is only getting worse. soon enough, software pirates won't have their conscience nagging at them over time, causing them to pay.
2) Online/PDF documentation. Most people I know prefer a printed manual, but fewer and fewer companies provide this for free without extra cost. PDFs are just a few more files to include in the act of pirating the software, and online files are generally accessible by anyone. If not, a copy of the site will be made at some point, and the pages will be available more conveniently from your local machine. People who like printed manuals will not pay, they will just print th manual themselves.
3) Pirates won't tell their friends, they will just give the software to their friends, pirated, and the friends will appreciate this enough to continue down the path mentioned in point #1. eventually everyone will have all software they want for free, and at that time developers will get almost no $$ for anything they do, now matter how great.


----------

