What's your opinion about Macwarez?!

Okay first off, sorry this is a bit late.. just been away for a while...

First thing I will admit to is pirating software and music. It's something I do.. I use the software I pirate. On the other side of the spectrum, I am an official beta tester (well, I was, since they are done now) for Adobe Photoshop 7, and I am in Apple's seeding program. 'Nuff said about software.. as I ahve something else I would rather you all think about...

First of all, on music, I end up buying the CD's of MP3s I download... example, the Harry Potter soundtrack.. I d/led the whole thing to my hard drive, only to go out and buy it and RIP IT TO MY HARD DRIVE... Why did I do thaT? not becase I felt bad, but because I like the booklets and nice looking CDs :p

Anyawy, the thing I want you all to think about:

I collect operating systems.. Its almost an obsession. I have every version of Windows ever shipped, even some that werent (Chicago [win95 beta], and Bob [yes, it did exist.. if you want screenshots, lemme know]), and yes, I have version 1.0.... on the Mac side, I have the first publically available version of System 0.whateveritwas (i have too many things).... all the way up to a couple betas of Mac OS X 10.2. I even have the System 7 ported to x86, and I have Rhapsody DR2 for Intel. Heck, I even have CD's and CD Images of restore CD's and disks from older systems (have some nice Performas).

Anyway, I collect the OSes... with me, it is a "ooh look at me I have this" and I *DONT* use the OSes, I just *HAVE* them. Which brings up the question... since I dont use the OSes myself, and I dont give them to anyone (which then would bring the possiblity of people using it themselves)... is it really WRONG of me to get CD Images from people who have OSes I dont? for example, I want images of Every CD that comes with a new iMac... since I dont use them, would it really be WRONG of me to just HAVE a copy of the CDs for my own personal collection?

Just something to think about....
 
Reference 'alinea'.

When I first used a Macintosh Plus in 1987 I had to learn some Pascal (MacPascal was nice and easy). I didn't have ANY english course before doing Pascal. I naturally assumed that 'writeln' was the verb for 'to write'. I actually asked an English girl the following: "Would you writeln me a letter?"

This got cleared up only about a year later, when my English courses began and I found out that 'writeln' was 'write line' or something like that.

Well, it's easy to mix things up and often hard to unwire. Is this thread long enough now? ;)
 
I don't think it's an issue to collect software if you don't use it. You are not the intended demographic that would pay for the software. You are not keeping the intended demographic from having it. No harm, no foul.

And to wrap up my "intellectual thread" into here. I think that commercial organizations are too powerful, and are overcharging (generally) for software. There should be some sort of governing body looking out for consumers of software, and there isn't. At least not in the US. Just think if some government decided to put $50 million on a word processor application that would then be freely available. A public work like a dam or a bridge. Wouldn't that be worth something?

Hell, we gave Airlines several billion dollars so that they could continue charging us to fly! I think this would be way more beneficial. Too much profiteering, too little social concern. Pirating is generally wrong, but it's also a symptom of another, possibly larger, problem.

"Die you stupid horse." (whack whack whack)
 
Da horse mus not be allowed to die. Et is da only vitness to the prince's murder. if vee do not save it, it vill be da death of us all. Guards!! arrest dis man who es beating da horse:D
 
Thanks, Ed. Wouldn't want it to get all serious around here. :) See, it's 2 am here, and that response is really funny about now. I'm not sure why it'd be funny enough to you to post it since it's only 11 where you are. All the same. Highly amused. And now, I officially that I vill not post any more to dis thread.

Ever seen "Wassup wif da Def Star?" ??? aka
Star Wars Gangsta Rap
 
No, i've never seen that. i don't do rap. i avoid rap. rap would have to hunt me down and stick a gun in my face to get my attention. but it sounds like this is comedy that pokes fun of rap, so i might enjoy it.

but no, never saw it.

(and hey, it's been a busy day and my sense of time, and humor, is completely askew:p )
 
Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
ksv, are you accusing me of drinking and posting?:p

you should know i gave the stuff up.:cool:
Click to expand...

:)

No, I just see a very interesting phenomen on these forums.
Here's a good recipe for a thread with over 100 replies:
-One Ed
-An Admiral or two
-1 PC user
-A couple of 30+ lines posts
-A few other well-known macosx.com posters
-1-3 strangers
Mix them all together, and... wheee! :D
 
Originally posted by theed
And to wrap up my "intellectual thread" into here. I think that commercial organizations are too powerful, and are overcharging (generally) for software. There should be some sort of governing body looking out for consumers of software, and there isn't. At least not in the US. Just think if some government decided to put $50 million on a word processor application that would then be freely available. A public work like a dam or a bridge. Wouldn't that be worth something?
Click to expand...

I disagree. Well, let me explain before I get beaten here -- I don't think software companies are too powerful or overcharging for software. For one, it's a fact of capitalism that there needs to be a balance between supply and demand, and those two factors directly influence the price of the good -- if the price goes too high, demand goes down and the company loses profit. Conversely: too cheap, demand too high, shortages of product, company loses profit. Software companies are not free to charge the hell out of us for their product -- no one would buy it! Sure, they are "free" to do that in the sense that they could if they wanted to commit suicide, just like you're "free" to put a gun to your head (meaning ABLE to do it) but I'll bet that most people would think that that's not an option, therefore they're not "free" to do it.

If a software company doubled the price of their software overnight, they'd be putting the proverbial gun to their collective head.

Fact is, there's ONE software company that's been accused of this, and they're under heavy scrutiny and examination at this point. As far as the other companies go, they're charging what they and millions of other people consider a fair price for the software.

I accept that people will have a problem with the price of software -- people have a problem with the price of EVERYTHING. When was the last time you said to yourself, "Gee, this is too cheap"?
 
what you're talking about is classic capitalist economics, which assumes minimal barrier to entry into a market or effective competition in that market. (It also assumes that any theory it ever made up actually holds water, because we don't really know. Voodoo economics anyone?) We made a system, and it mostly worked, and we made up stories why. But the truth is far more complex, and barely manageable.

I'm glad you're in an economic bracket where you find prices reasonable, but I think that the money to be made in software has gone largely from disposable income from rich people and healthy companies willing to take risks on crazy inventions; to companies and individuals struggling through every means they know to meet their bottom line. The distribution is much different, but I don't think the prices have changed accordingly.

Software, especially business tools and office suites, have become essential tools, and will be bought for a while at any price. This roughly defines a monopoly. (or cartel) ... There are laws against all the grocery stores in an area jacking up prices just for profit while keeping out competition. Do you really think software companies aren't prone to the same behaviour if given the opportunity? (And about M$, they were handed new rules in 1995 when they were first deemed problematic, and it didn't do jack. Laws don't represent software very well.)

I'm glad you think the system works, people like you give me faith that there won't be a mass mutiny with global anarchy ensuing. But I will still maintain that there is a growing problem that needs to be addressed. (And to minimize arguing, I don't think you're wrong, I just think your reality is not fully representative of what many of the rest of us experience.)

CD's are cheaper to produce than tapes. Are CD's cheaper than tapes in the stores? Good for the consumer / supply and demand economics my ass.
 
I actually think that much food is too cheap. Do have any idea how hard it is to be a farmer these days? I also think gas is too cheap here in the U.S. And the rest of the world would seem to agree with me. I think air fares are too cheap. It seems plainly obvious that airlines were not maintaining proper standards, and passing on the costs of potential risks in their business model as cost to the consumer. Airlines destroy the environment and endanger lives every day, but when they charge too little to cover their butts, they ask for government help. Airlines have been government subsidized since day 1.

I think health care is too expensive, and teachers underpaid, and intellectual property overpriced for the common good. That's what capitalism is after all supposed to be about, the common good. Not the business good. Full world economics is going to break a lot of things. This is the world as I see it. ... sorry for double posting. I feel as strongly about these issues as you do on yours. It's rare that I can't see eye to eye on some level with even the the most staunchly opposed debaters.
 
Great points... but I do have one thing to say:

Photoshop costs around $600. $700 at most. QuarkXPress costs $1000 (and that's exaggerating). If you don't have $1,700 with which to purchase software to start a business, then I think you seriously need to consider whether you should be starting a business at all.

These programs that we are calling "overpriced" are high-end, production packages aimed at professionals who will primarily be using the software to produce something that in turn produces an income for them. $700 to give you a well-written piece of software that will, in turn, enable you to make thousands of dollars with it is NOT out-of-line to be asking. In fact, it's cheap.

I was making a brochure for an oil-change company today and was looking on the internet at some of their franchise start-up costs. Estimated funds needed to purchase one franchise, real-estate and all: $500,000 to $900,000. Estimated cost to start up a graphic-design company, have licensed software and make money: $10,000, at most. $4000 Mac. $2000 in software. $2000 for a high-quality printer. $1000 for internet access for a month, and that's FAST internet access. And be profitable in a year and a half if you're decent.

These packages are business tools -- not home creativity packages like Kai's Power Goo or something like that. When was the last time you saw a PhotoShop ad aimed at the home user? Or a QuarkXPress ad? They are well-built, high-priced, high-performance business software packages that extend above and beyond what you can walk into a Best Buy and purchase off the shelf.

Yes, there is an isolated bracket that can purchase this software. There is an isolated bracket that purchases Porches. There is an isolated bracket that starts their own business. There is an isolated bracket for every commodity and good on the market, well, besides milk. Adobe is under no obligation to make PhotoShop available to EVERYONE. Get the LE version if you can't afford PhotoShop.
 
Originally posted by theed
I actually think that much food is too cheap. Do have any idea how hard it is to be a farmer these days? I also think gas is too cheap here in the U.S. And the rest of the world would seem to agree with me. I think air fares are too cheap. It seems plainly obvious that airlines were not maintaining proper standards, and passing on the costs of potential risks in their business model as cost to the consumer. Airlines destroy the environment and endanger lives every day, but when they charge too little to cover their butts, they ask for government help. Airlines have been government subsidized since day 1.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. Price too high, business fails. Price too low, business fails. My point was that people tend to think that the majority of things in this world are too expensive. Unless you're involved deeply with the crude oil business (ie, you're a consumer), I'll bet that gas prices falling would put a smile on your face.

Originally posted by theed
I think health care is too expensive, and teachers underpaid, and intellectual property overpriced for the common good. That's what capitalism is after all supposed to be about, the common good. Not the business good. Full world economics is going to break a lot of things. This is the world as I see it. ... sorry for double posting. I feel as strongly about these issues as you do on yours. It's rare that I can't see eye to eye on some level with even the the most staunchly opposed debaters.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is about individual competetive potential in the business world -- Socialism is about the common good.

Hehe... there's no one best way. Capitalism isn't the BEST way, but it is one way and it's working better than a lot of other ways.
 
Originally posted by ElDiabloConCaca
Capitalism is about individual competetive potential in the business world -- Socialism is about the common good.
Click to expand...

WHoooooaaaaah. I think we've found our sticking point in this argument. I was working under the premise that any government or economic system is supposed to be set up to best meet the needs of the people within it. This was an attempt to realize that potential. Truly, if this isn't capitalism's goal, I want out. Send me on a rocket to Mars to live in a biospheric bubble.

As for your specific points, I think photoshop is properly priced for commercial use. It's one of the few products that has maintained market share mostly due to its superiority to competing products. yay adobe.

However, if my Dad wants to crop and brighten photos for personal use, I see no reason that he should have to use crap when a perfectly good product exists. If he wouldn't buy it anyway, why can't we come up with a licensing scheme that allows him to use it for cheap without hobbling it into uselessness? It would not hurt adobe if my father used photoshop for $100. Instead, we're fostering competition in a duplication of effort market for stuff that photoshop did better 6 years ago. There's no current licensing model which allows this. To err on the side of the business is to buy him a full version. To err on the side of the consumer is to pirate software. It seems lopsided to me that one is so accepted and the other so criminal.

but your point about economics, I'm not sure you heard me right. Airlines didn't fail, they're still going. And they have only now started to improve security, for which they will no doubt want more subsidization. ... and you totally didn't get me on gas prices. Lower prices stifle competition in much needed areas. alternative fuel research would have occurred naturally if gas prices reflected their environmental impact a little more closely in the US. (I am a consumer. I also read the Tragedy of the Commons)

And your point about starting up a business ... I am the proud owner of an out of pocket startup company much like you describe. It's not as simple or based on proper economic value as you paint it out to be. :-(
 
Originally posted by testuser
If the OSes were sold would you buy them (similar to what collectors of other items do)?

For example, say you did not have the Mac OS X Public Beta. Would you then have been interested in purchasing it off me (I have the Mac OS X PB CD, booklet, packaging, etc)?

This does not prove anything one way or the other with regards to piracy (and is not intended to). Maybe we should make another thread: Mac users and the software they collect. We can even give it a snazzy title like "Bizarre Software Fetishes".
Click to expand...

I'll buy them (as I said, I like the boxes and booklets :D) off you sure, if I have the amount of money you want for them. I just "pirate' them if I dont find someone with it for sale, or the ones for sale dont have the booklets etc (in which case, I dont care if its a DMG or a CD they gave me :p
 
Originally posted by ksv


:)

No, I just see a very interesting phenomen on these forums.
Here's a good recipe for a thread with over 100 replies:
-One Ed
-An Admiral or two
-1 PC user
-A couple of 30+ lines posts
-A few other well-known macosx.com posters
-1-3 strangers
Mix them all together, and... wheee! :D
Click to expand...

Am I well known? :p

Perhaps If I mentioned what Carracho server I run/ran? 'course, who would admit to visiting it in a thread such as this? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top