alexachucarro
I'm 1/4 Basque you know?...
please change that mate. It's Achucarro (really its Achúcarro). please don't misspell my name!
Amazing Realization!!!! ........
- Thread starter solrac
- Start date
please change that mate. It's Achucarro (really its Achúcarro). please don't misspell my name!
sheepguy42
AFOL
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
Registered
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!!
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
mac shaman
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
Registered
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...
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
Registered
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).
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
Mac Ninja
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.
edge100 said:
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.
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.
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.
I totally agree with you.
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
Registered
"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...
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
Super Moderator
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).
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).
toast
Gone !
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.
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.
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.
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
Registered
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!
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
Inventor of the Egg Wave
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?
One exception: I can't find the new ***** album, can someone .sit it and email to me?
solrac
Mac Ninja
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.