I think that if there is any difference between shareware and commercial products, it is the amount of people involved in the creation of them.

Most shareware is created by a tiny company or individual. As far as I know, most shareware also has only one or two programmers for it, as well.

Commercial products are just that, commercial. They are made by industry, perhaps 5 or 10 or 510 programmers work on a single product.

Of course it is possible to list exceptions to this rule, but I think it still stands strong.

Etan: true, but what difference does it makes from a customer standpoint? Does it matters if a particular software was created by 500 programmers and it's direct competitor by 10 programmers, while they are equal in features?

from a consumer standpoint i think there is a definite dinstinction. while it may be an illusion, there seems to be a higher level of interaction between users and developers. shareware developers also seem to be a bit more open-minded when it comes to user suggestions, at least to the point of responding with a "cool idea" or a "hell no!" try getting the same user satisfaction from abobe.

I think originally the distinction was that Shareware was fully working software, including the ability to save your stuff. without any timer or anything like that. Commercial software has demos, but those are limited: It's fully functioning, but only for 30 days, or you can use all features, but you can't save. Stuff like that. From that standpoint, Unsanity is clearly not a shareware company, but that doesn't mean that *no* software is shareware.

Slava, for most customers there is no difference between shareware developers and commercial developers. For a slight few, there is a huge difference:

Companies like Unsanity, Panic, Ranchero, are very responsive to suggestions and comments about their software. They are helpful with problems and really think about their customers.

When you are dealing with Adobe or Microsoft (or for that matter, Apple), even if you can talk directly to a programmer, they don't have as much control over their software they are programming.

As said earlier, Shareware developers are responsive to suggestions, and to some people, that is important.

Good rant. In ye olde days the shareware concept was as much about distribution as licensing. With no websites to download stuff from, small-company software was largely distributed by "sharing." The web has leveled this out in a big way and I agree that the term should be deprecated.

There is try before you buy software.

Almost useless demo/cripled software.

Faith software where all you have to go on before you pay for it is what other people have told you about.

I guess you can find yourself a pirate copy of the last one so that you can see if it does what you need, but then why buy it if it does what you need since you already have a fully functional copy :P

Even Adobe software is now shareware since you can download a fully functional 30 day demo of it :)

Hey, no fair!

And I just released my first shareware app ever. And it's "true" shareware: it's not nagware, not timerware, not limitedfeatureware, not annoyingdelayonstartupware. I have to admit, while those measures do increase sales, I really think that those measures turn an app into demoware or commercial software.

It's not bad to release demoware, either, but if I'm going to go to that trouble I'd probably just call it commercial.

I consider shareware to be something that an author doesn't materially depend upon, but would like to get some kind of return from. I'm not going to quit my day job to sell my software, but I think it's good enough to put out on the market.

And so far, I've responded personally to every single e-mail that has been sent to me about it, whether positive or negative.

That's shareware! To quote a Monty Python movie: "I'm not dead yet!"

I'm not an industry figure, so I have no information on whether crippled software, delay-on-startup software or other tricks work to increase sales.

I can say this, as a pretty experimental guy who has tried a lot of shareware in the past (and bought a few titles), I find crippleware (like the newest version of Plunk!) extremely annoying.

Whenever I download shareware, titles like that get dissapeared immediately. They never see a second run or get bought.

Each company looses one potential sale, right there. Releasing annoying software doesn't work with me.

I like that "Liscense" field...it gives me a good preview of whether I'll even download a title to try it. Too annoying, and I never even try it.

What nonsense. Just because most shareware today doesn't meet an outdated definition doesn't mean shareware is dead -- it means the Association of Shareware Professionals needs to update their definition. The big distinction between freeware, shareware, and commercial software is that one is free, one requires you to pay up front, and one lets you try some or all of the program's capabilities before you invest anything more than your time.

I have seen great shareware and insisted in paying for it while it was still in beta because of the countless hours the program saved me. I have seen such severely crippled shareware that I gave up on it, despite the fact that everyone who has paid for it raves about it.

Best of all, shareware usually lets me determine before I buy whether a program is worth spending money on. The only one that's really disappointed me is the way plain-and-simple Anarchie evolved into bloated, messy, unintuitive Interarchy.

Yes, it's all software, but shareware is a different kind of software. It's not due to word-of-mouth advertising, the size of the company, or the way the program is distributed. It's about test driving the software, discovering whether it works for you, and then deciding to pass or pay -- and I've done both several times.

Dan Knight, publisher, Low End Mac

Dan, the problem with your definition is that then Adobe and Microsoft create shareware, which they don't. They are both commercial enterprises that create commercial products which you can test drive (in fact, Microsoft advertises their Office "Test Drive" as just that, a test drive).

There is a big difference between a demo of a commercial app and a trial-run-before-appearance-of-nag-messages shareware apps, at least with good shareware. Something like Ambrosia releasing a 3 level demo to a full game and calling that shareware is somewhat false - thats really downloadable commercial software in disguise - but Panic putting out the full Audion product and then starting to ask you for money after a month of playing with it, thats shareware.

Maybe the terms "commercial" and "shareware" don't quite match up with those two methods of try and buy, but thats how it matches up in my mind more or less. And I like to know on VT the liklihood of me being able to download and try a fully functional program, versus being sent to a page that will give me either nothing but an online store or a "demo" that wont let me save print or open files. There is a difference.

Etan: Nothing keeps Adobe or Microsoft from releasing shareware products just because they're a big commercial developer.

>>>The big distinction between freeware, shareware, and commercial software is that one is free, one requires you to pay up front, and one lets you try some or all of the program's capabilities before you invest anything more than your time.

So is Demoware programs like Office Testdrive and Dreamweaver shareware? By that definition, yes since I can "try some or all of the program's capabilities" before purchasing.

James: No. Shareware has all the features of the "full version". You can use it fully, but you're encouraged to pay anyway.

Part of the problem with shareware is what to do about pirating. These days, anyone can get any serial number they want with a Google search. One guy buys the program/cracks the serial algorithm and releases it.
Sure, some developers routinely check the most obvious places (Serial Surfer, etc) and ban those serial numbers, but they can't keep up with everyone all the time.
Solution? Release everything as open-source donation-ware.

But Dreamweaver and some other trial versions of major apps are not crippled. They are completely functional for 30 days, then they shut down unless you pay up. This is no different than some very small independent apps that are also completely functional but only for the trial period (Thoth, IPNetMonitor). I agree the line is very blurred.

VersionTracker should continue to use the "License" term. The license agreements of most software, humongous or small, grant you a "license" to use the software, but almost none of them say that payment grants you "ownership" of the software. You only own a license, folks, so until that changes let's call it what it is.

>But Dreamweaver and some other trial versions of major apps are not
>crippled. They are completely functional for 30 days, then they shut
>down unless you pay up.

I call that crippled. Shareware does not have anything that keeps you from using it forever without paying. IPNetMonitor is not Shareware. It's commercial software.

From a developer standpoint, I view shareware as an inexpensive way to distribute a program. In other words, I don't need to set up a method of physical distribution. I don't need to set up a box or or a lot of print material, or a printed manual. Hopefully, I can even get away with impressing a few key web sites to get free announcements, etc.

In other words, not a lot of upfront cash. As far as whether it is crippled or not, etc. I think that, except for software $10 and under, if you don't cripple it... you won't get significant money for it. Simple as that. For some that is okay.

From a user standpoint, shareware is usually something that is a niche product that meets your specific needs. Commercial software needs to make back the huge amount of upfront costs (advertising etc.) by making a product that appeals to a HUGE audience. Thus, we get bloatware and impersonal software.

Anyway, I think the definition is fine, and some people are just splitting hairs and/or realizing that they are actually creating the wrong type of software for the wrong type of distribution method.

Aaron

The distinction between shareware and commercial software is how it's made, how it's marketed and how it's distributed.

Shareware is designed to appeal to a smaller audience, usually a vertical market, whereas commercial makes that bar as horizontal as possible. What makes shareware great is that it's not trying to be everything to everybody.

Some of us would only need or use a small subset of features that a commercial app provides. Shareware's goal, to me anyway, is to provide that subset conveniently and at considerable savings to the consumer. Sure, there's shareware out there that attempts to be everything to everybody, but it's authors are obviously mistaken in calling it shareware.

Shareware isn't dead just because of an outdated definition and the fact that the big boys are using shareware techniques to market their software. I don't see shareware going away any time soon.

Open Source software often has many of the benefits of classic shareware. One possible model is to license a peice of software under the GPL and charge $20 or whatever per user. Users get the freedom of the source code to the software plus the installed application. They in turn support you as a developer directly with their payment or donation.

I disgust even myself.

Freeware is superior because it can't be pirated and does not make you feel guilty for using it longer than 30 days :)

I think we're talking about semantics here, slava.

Whether software is made by a few people in a garage or a few hundred people at Oracle, it's still software and will be evaluated on its merits.

Shareware is a marketing strategy, not a software type.

That this marketing strategy has traditionally appealed to small companies with limited marketing budgets and is now employed more broadly is undeniable, but it doesn't change the essence of shareware.

All it shows is that shareware works.

Ron

mate well all i have to say is thats all shit shareware was awesome and now that its bloody illegal i cant find a decent copy of street rod 1, 2 , 3 its so shit isnt there like a crack or patch to fix this??