Talk:Shareware/Archive 1

Windows not top
Certainly, Windows is the most popular platform for shareware. However, there are thriving shareware communities on many other platforms, including PalmOS, MacOS, and MacOS X. Since the last operating is (in many ways) a Unix variant, then the statement that shareware is rare on Unix-like operating systems is problematic. -- Raph Levien


 * Shareware is rare on Unix and Unix-clone operating systems. MacOS may be Unix under the hood, but this still leaves the official Unices - HPUX, Solaris, AIX, plus the dozen or so Linux distributions, plus the xxxBSD variants, all of which do not have "thriving shareware communities". Graham Chapman


 * I'm not a registered user yet, but I'm half tempted to to better contribute to this article. Levien's comment about Windows being the "most popular" platform for shareware ignores certain cultural and historical aspects of the concept. Shareware existed on the Amiga and the Apple II, and to this day, the Mac platform has had an overrepresentation of shareware development compared with Windows. (I don't know if it's still true, but some developers actually made more money on Mac versions of shareware than Windows versions.) If nothing else, the relevance of viruses, worms, and other malware should be discussed as a possible damper of the distribution model, as well as the political climate brought about by the current culture war involving Intellectual Property and Open Source. -- Des Courtney


 * There is a huge amount of shareware available for the Mac (Classic & OS X). While on Linux/Unix it's not common (open source being used instead), the Mac has had a long tradition of shareware.  Sometimes this is in the form of demos (e.g. TextWrangler/BBEdit, which is sort of shareware), and sometimes it is in the traditional "n uses" category.


 * Wow, you guys are youngin's!! :)) DOS I'm sure has the most shareware, partly because it was easier and cheaper to write simple programs without a GUI: User Interfaces were invented and re-invented; and various tricks were used to deal with real and protected memory to varying effect. Also, already existing programs for CP/M could be rewritten for DOS. CP/M programs weren't shareware, partly because many were incompatible, and even used different floppy formats- and the only public net was "sneakernet." Commercial developers generally worked on Unixes, which were also incompatible with eachother- but more importantly were sold for thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars on computers which were similarly priced and included service and support (as ina real live human being would come on site to diagnose and repair problems) Someone might want to research Boston Computer Society and the Simtel.net sites Cuvtixo (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of terms
Should there be more information about how shareware differs from the 'full package', by describing methods like crippling (i.e. denying access to certain functionalities of the program), limited number of start ups or a limited period in which the program works (both with links to the VBox protection software)? --Tinctorius


 * I would think so, almost every shareware item I've encountered cripples some features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.87.106 (talk)


 * I believe you guys are more referring to Trialware, which typically is a non-full featured product UNTIL you register it, typically trialware only works for a limited number of days.
 * Shareware itself IS the full version of the software program and is full featured from the second it leaves the developer. In this respect it is similar to Commercial software.  The only differences between Shareware and commercial software is that with shareware you are expected to pay the developer if you enjoy using the product. In addition, shareware is encouraged to be freely redistributed among peers and users, whereas doing this with commercial software is known as piracy.DavidBurton 12:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This gets back to a point on the original article that has been added and removed many times over the past few years. There is no formal or official definition of "Shareware".  To some editors the term may include those particular elements (limited functionality, limited duration of use, etc), where to others the term may not.  With a lack of canonical definition, we typically turn to the major industry forces.  In this instance, those are the Association of Shareware Professionals, the Association of Independent Software Industry Professionals, other professional organizations, and major download sites (see the article for a list).  All of these entities' common definition include that Shareware is software made available to the consumer which can be used and previewed prior to final purchase.  The professional organizations tend to include that unregistered software should be redistributable whereas several download sites tend to prefer software remain on their own site.  Finally, the professional organizations (specifically ASP and AISIP) explicitly include software which has time-limited usage as shareware, but major download sites have a wide range of policies on the matter.  Without a canonical definition of the term, this situation should be more inclusive of questionable name use. --Bwagstaff 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Shareware isn't trialware, is it?
The way this article reads, shareware is a version of the full regular software, limited by constraints of available features or only allowed to be used free for a limited time. I understand this to be called trialware, a concept distinct from shareware. In programs I have that call themselves shareware, the concept is more closely related to freeware; the payment is a voluntary contribution, not necessarily of a fixed amount, that sometimes brings added benefits to the user. An analogy that I have seen mentioned on some of my own shareware is that paying for shareware is like contributing to PBS (public television); it will always be freely available to all, including those who don't fund its development, but one might get some sort of premium with a donation. In the case of shareware, this premium could indeed be a software upgrade, but the usefulness of the free product isn't constrained in such a way as to force one to acquire an upgrade as is the case with trialware, which might be better understood as a "free sample" enticing one to buy the full package. B7T 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly, common usage makes no distinction between trialware, crippleware, and traditional shareware these days. Certainly there was a time when any software labeled as "shareware" was the full version of the software, which could be freely distributed with the understanding (and a license to the effect) that continued use of the program was only permitted if it was paid for.  I believe that in terms of current usage, though, the article is correct. Geoffrey Spear 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's make this clear: if there's a program that's really fully functional and whose only limitation is that it'll stop working (a) after a given amount of time - usually a month, or (b) after a given number of program startups; is it a Shareware or not? Jancikotuc 13:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't find me calling such applications, shareware; that's demoware or trialware. The original, and proper (in my opinion), idea was to share the fully functioning software. Shareware that nags is still shareware unless it raises to the level that the nags make the application effectively unusable. Shareware that is missing advanced features (advanced being a subjective term) could still be shareware. Sometimes the author would like to include features, but they in-turn are proprietary to someone (sometimes other parties and sometimes the author him/her self). --Charles Gaudette 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to define what Shareware is the other day, and here is what I said (and why it differs from Trialware): Shareware is software written with the intent of it being redistributed for free between users. If a user wishes to redistribute, or 'share' the software, then he or she must do so with all of the original files and documentation still in place and unaltered. Authors writing shareware rely on an honesty based system when looking at earning money from their product. Users are expected to pay a Shareware fee if they like the product. This differs from Trialware where the users are expected to pay a fee if they wish to continue using the product beyond a given period of time. Trialware these days also tends to be more feature limited until you pay your Trialware fee (which I admit is a debatable point). It should be noted that Shareware is not Nagware or Adware. Shareware is the full software product, the only identifier is a splash screen that explains that it is indeed Shareware, and it also explains the terms of redistribution and cost of registration to the user.DavidBurton 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * However, it should be considered that, even though that may be the ideal definition of Shareware, the word Shareware is in fact used for demoware, trialware and others. If the article is cleaned-up to reflect this definition of shareware, it should also mention that the term is (ab)used for other types of software distribution. Also, it may be interesting to see how the Apogee Model (ie, offering one episode of a 3-part game) fits with this shareware definition.Sega381 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed in respect that the term Shareware is commonly misused to represent the other forms of software that you have mentioned. The Apogee marketing method is one I truly respect.  As you said, essentially you purchase the game on a chapter by chapter basis (sometimes up to six installments), and this is done using Shareware terms.  I think (please confirm) that Apogee typically released the first chapter (episode) of their games for free, enticing the market with a Freeware game, this lured consumers in for further installments.  This "first episode free" point of my post will need to be confirmed, but if correct would make Apogee's marketing model require both Freeware and Shareware episodes to be written.  This also helps to reinforce that Freeware differs from Shareware. Apogee's model deliberately uses a collection of games to tell a story, we need to stay on topic by looking at each software program as an individual entity.  Shareware and Freeware are both types of software, however Freeware is not a type of shareware, and vice versa. DavidBurton 09:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we can consider Apogee releasing Freeware. The model evolved through time: the first few games were closer to what you define as shareware: you could play them and redistribute them for free, and if you liked them, you wer asked to pay a registration fee. Registering did give you benefits: at least telephone support and clues. Apogee called that shareware. Then, it began with the episodes model: a game was divided into independent episodes, usually three. The first one was shareware, the others were commercial. So, you could play the first one for free, and pay for it if you liked it; to use the other ones, you had to pay for each one. The first episode was called Shareware episode. Still, the benefits of registering the first episode usually included support, cheats and hints. Up to here, it fits your Shareware definition, only adding to it the non-shareware episodes, which were separate and commercial. It may be noted here that Apogee was refused from the Association of Shareware Professionals as their cheats were not given out for free, but were benefits of the registration (in the Shareware episode).


 * But later games, still distributed under a mode called Shareware, were a little bit different (and this was the model used for the longest time): you could't buy each episode separately. The first episode, Shareware episode, could be played and distributed for free. If you liked it, you paid and registered, but you couldn't get or pay for just that episode; you bought the whole series. When you paid and registered the game, you obtained a better version of the same game, that included more episodes and stuff. Doesn't this come close to demoware, in that you have part of the final game for free, but have to pay to get the rest? This example seems to blurr the shareware definition, doesn't it? Sega381 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have taken some time to do a little reading and perhaps we might like to consider that the "Apogee Model" was the precursor to demoware as we now know it. In which case, it should be noted that the Apogee Model itself is an extremely important landmark/innovation within the software industry, and that while it was initially flagged as shareware, todays terminology undoubtedly reclassifies the Apogee Model as demoware.  However, this should not be the focus nor the backbone of this Shareware article, as it is more relevant to the heritage of demoware. Perhaps if it does not already exist (highly unlikely), wikipedia needs an Apogee Model wiki that this Shareware article can be linked to via a "see also" link. Not relevant to here, but the demoware wiki will also need to say something to reflect this. DavidBurton 10:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Association of Shareware Professionals' Shareware FAQ defines it like this: "Shareware is a marketing method, not a type of software or even strictly just a distribution method. When software is marketed through normal retail channels, you are forced to pay for the product before you've even seen it. The shareware marketing method lets you try a program before you buy it. Since you've tried the program, you know whether it will meet your needs before you pay for it. A shareware program is just like a program you find in major stores, catalogs, and other places where software is purchased; except you get to use it, on your own computer, before paying for it."  This is the definition I have always believed, shareware is simply "try before you buy" marketing.  That can be through a playable demo, time limited, feature limited, or any other functionality limited.  What was termed as the Apogee model above did not start with them.  Vern Buerg, for example, started in 1983 writing shareware software; that's before the term was coined.  His utilities, such as List, would be classified as trialware by your definitions, yet it one of the first items included in the Shareware Hall Of Fame.  I believe the discussed definition is too narrow and does not represent the classic Shareware definition of 'try before you buy'. ~ Bwagstaff 14:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice that nobody is saying that Apogee invented shareware; the Apogee Model was a variation on the shareware idea; nor it did invent demoware, but it may have influenced it. I guess that David's definition is the way that the first shareware programs were actually distributed: the same version before and after you registered, with no limitations (which may have been a little naive, and was based on the honesty of the people using the software). Shareware evolved later into having more and more limitations (notice that the ASP definition doesn't mention crippling or limiting the program, it leaves the possibility kind of open). So it is not really easy to see where shareware stops, and demoware, trialware, nagware or crippleware start.Sega381 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the variety of opinions expressed above, I think it's clear that the finished article needs to reflect the various interpretations of the term, and home in on a few common themes if possible, rather than trying to pick one "correct" definition.


 * Personally, I remember "Shareware" (from the Amiga days of the late 80s) as nothing more than an honour system, where you could download and redistribute the software (intact) as much as you liked, but the authors asked you to show your appreciation with a small donation (often five pounds or something) if you found the program useful and used it often.


 * However, it's clear that the term has been appropriated by other people using other methods (the Doom II model, trial- and increasingly even scupperware, etc., etc.). The article needs to show that, even if individual contributors have their own "favourite" definitions.


 * I seem to recall that a good example of a Wikipedia article on a poorly-defined term is the one on terrorism - might be worth emulating the style of that (i.e., presenting a bunch of conflicting definitions without judgement, and trying to pick out the common themes). Rowan Williams 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The way the article reads makes shareware sound as if it is always exactly the same as demo/trialware; like "A shareware program is accompanied by a request for payment, and the software's distribution license often requires such a payment." makes it sound like shareware always forces people to buy the full version of software, and that sharewareis never the full version. That just isn't the case; yes most moderm shareware is a trial version of a comercial program, but wikipedia is not just about the current moment! Shareware (like apogee) has in the past been full software released for free and allowed to be redistributed by is creator(s), and just because this is not common now doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in this historical encylopedia artice. ~Anonnymous


 * I have cleaned up the article top to remove these disputed claims. The definition is still appropriate and accurate without them.  ~ Bwagstaff 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of shareware is software that is free to distribute and asks for donations. Freeware does not ask for donations. Any nagging or payment constraints disqualifies the software as shareware. Furthermore, regarding the definitional dispute, the DEFINITION of shareware has NOT been extended to include other types of software. That would be like saying the definition of elephant has been extended to include violas. Just because some people want to call their software "shareware" does NOT mean that it is.


 * I guess the point is, who makes up the definition? What authority does anyone have to define that? And a definition can change (though in this case it's not clear); if the definition of a planet can change (made by a somewhat official authority), why can't the shareware definition change? (even though one may not agree with that). The closest to an authority or definition is, I guess, the ASP.Sega381 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no authority. There is no "OSI" for shareware; i.e. an organization that arbitrates what is shareware and what in a way that most people will accept. As you note, there was an organization called the Association of Shareware Professionals that was probably the closest thing to an "official" shareware body as there ever was. They took a fairly hard line against "crippling"--although it loosened a bit over time and was always the subject of acrimonious and ongoing debate. However, not every author accepted the ASP position and there was a continuum of practices ranging from software with no differences between registered and unregistered software, "minor" registration inducements, all the way to various forms of trialware. Frankly, the term seems a bit of an anachronism today, if for no reason other than that you don't really hear the term or see much of it in its original form any longer. (I'd argue that "donation-ware" is a bit different because you're not ostensibly *required* to register as with shareware.) (As for the ASP definition, I was a bit surprised to see that the organization is still around. But I don't see any definition on their public site. Given that they cite Microsoft as an example of "try before you buy" software, I wonder if they have a definition in place any longer.

Basinrange 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The correct meaning of shareware is effectively freeware plus request for a gift, if the user CHOOSES to do so. PC lamers have abused the traditional meaning of shareware for over a decade, by DEMANDING money. By definition, that kind of software is NOT shareware but in fact a commercial program. If you require the user to pay you, you are selling your program - which is then not shareware, but idiotic people have totally ruined the concept of shareware. This is one example of extremely widespread stupidity in the universe. --194.251.240.114 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep the discussion civil. Bob Wallace, the author of PC-Write, is widely credited with creating the term "shareware." At its peak, his company made something like $2m per year selling the program so it was clearly commercial. The Association of Shareware Professionals, which many shareware authors belonged to starting in the late eighties, likewise defined shareware as a marketing concept for commercial software. Doubtless some authors worded their request for payment more strongly than others, and "shareware" does blur with various forms of "donationware." However, from its beginning, the specific term "shareware" was most associated with the PC world and "try before you buy" commercial software. Over time, "shareware" software has tended to become more and more like demos (for a variety of reasons), but it's always been commercial. (The distinction between "demanding" money and requesting a specific gift can be subtle but is important when selling to companies.)

14:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Types??
Sega381 just added a section of "types" of shareware. The ones he added I wouldn't call shareware at all. For example, adware is another type of software, but not shareware at all. The other entries are just as dubious. Plus all the types he added are already included in the footer section. What say others? Should we nix the section? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 14:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the "Types" section. But I gave also placed it at the bottom of this discussion. The problems I have with it are (1) that some types are already in the article; (2) I am against "listmania" we can use the list to (further and more completely) discuss paragraphs that cite the different ways that the shareware model is subverted. --Charles Gaudette 18:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the list was not the most appropriate way of presenting the information. The idea is to show different ways that shareware can present itself, maybe not really categories but more like characteristics. For example, many shareware programs are nagware; some are crippleware; though there is no shareware that is prayerware, as it is a derivative. That kind of relation is not shown in the template footer. Some of them are mentioned in the article, but I was looking for a way to show a complete set. Check Crippleware and Demoware; both have the sentence "Other types of shareware include nagware, demoware, freeware, adware, and even spyware." That information, though it may be inaccurate, instead of being repeated on those pages, could be centered in this one. I agree with Charles' idea of using the list to expand it into a discussion of the model. And btw, instead of Adware being there, it should actually be something like advertising-supported software (which right now redirects to Adware). Sega381 04:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being a "See also" section. That's largely because I don't like template footers (Off-Topic). --72.92.130.81 02:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the actual heirarchy of models needs to be researched/explored. For example, are adware, crippleware, demoware, hostageware and nagware types of shareware or are they different distribution models altogether (i.e. peers rather than derivitives to shareware)?


 * I removed the list--it was in the way and it's still in the page history if we need it. BTW, I love page footers (where appropriate). :-) &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 14:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Shareware is shareware, in short this is what I said above in the "Shareware isn't trialware" posting: Shareware is the full software product, the only identifier is a splash screen that explains that it is indeed Shareware, and it also explains the terms of redistribution and cost of registration to the user. In addition to what I said above, shareware has a structured means of redistribution, in the way that is must be distrubuted in full, with all of its original documentation and files in their unaltered form, and in their original context.


 * This differs from Adware, which can be a free or cheap alternative to Shareware. Adware, as the name suggests incorporates Advertising into the product, typically by live internet streams, or by periodic lookups. Advertising in Adware tends to be obvious, yet non invasive to the work environment, thus keeping the softwares productivity at a premium.


 * Nagware is a Shareware alternative that 'nags' the user to perform a certain task - typically registering the product (yet these days it can be a 'nag' for the user to vote for the software on a given web site). These 'nags' differ in occurence, but can can be a simple "don't forget to register" notice every 10 minutes, or a "please support the authors by registering this product" nag every time you issue a save command to the program. Nagware has also been used as more of a colloquialism used to identify Adware that has been been written poorly in the way that advertising pops up frequently and unnecessarily.


 * Anyway, agreed that this should be in a "see also" section. Failing that, instead of being labelled "Types of Shareware", perhaps it should be retitled "Alternatives to Shareware". DavidBurton 12:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

POV
Clear POV problems in several sections:

"The failure of shareware in the games industry, for which it was once a lifeblood, is due to an expansion of the market — the market passed from the hands of developers into the hands of businessmen. Shareware is not efficient marginally; that is, there ever looms the danger that users of shareware do not buy the product proper. Giving away thirds of games made the other two-thirds unattractive but for the most zealous of fans, and the model failed. Demonstration versions, which have replaced shareware as a means of advertisement, are usually developed on the margin between a player's impressions of the game based on the demo and the player's satisfaction with the demo to such a degree that he will not buy the game — that is to say, demonstrations are developed as carefully as possible to carry the least content and the most smack."

"Shareware developers are usually individual computer programmers brave enough to take initiative and take risk — entrepreneurs. Therefore, online shareware author communities, like the newsgroup alt.comp.shareware.authors, are places for software seekers to post their novel software ideas for potential implementation. "Idea pools" like ShouldExist and CreativityPool are much less influential."

"As a consequence of the inability of shareware to deliver a good portion of potential profits, it has been confined as a distribution model to the ranks of small developers, often with programs which are not otherwise marketable. Shareware induces very few of these developers to continue developing their software. For more than one such developer, shareware is a way to "earn on the side" for amateur programs which took (or seemed to take) effort to develop. As it has become, in certain markets, less and less likely that a shareware distributor will ever receive any profits to boast of, shareware has in those markets given way to freeware on one hand and to more lofty models of distribution on the other."

Generally speaking, the author, apart from the section about the history of shareware, seem to know a little about the shareware games industry, but very little about shareware in general, thus the rather dubious statements above and generally inaccurate article. Ori Redler 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a very strong market for it. Shareware isn't just used for games, although this article is heavily biased toward them.  Indeed, I know several people with successful multi-million dollar companies that develop tools and utilities marketed using the Shareware model.  ~ Bwagstaff 14:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

When you have more than five dubious statements in a section, please use Template:Disputed-section rather than marking them individually, and then say which statements it is that you disagree with on the talk page. Otherwise the article text gets too broken up.Furby100 17:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be totally rewritten. Right now, the article reads like an editorial or blog post, and focuses mostly on Windows and negative things about shareware.Vvuppala 06:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately sourcing a better timeline and history may be difficult. However, you're quite correct that Shareware wasn't just Windows. It was big as a distribution model, most notably on DOS, before Windows even appeared on the scene. It largely went away (at least in its initial form) for a lot of reasons: Open Source, computing going mass market, trials/demos becoming almost universal even for conventional commercial software, etc. (And, yes, the complexity/cost of typical commercial games is part of the reason to.) But what's there now doesn't capture it well.

Basinrange 19:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the "Shareware on the Macintosh" section. While I agree that the POV of this article is not balanced at all, that section in particular was written to imply that the Mac platforms were somehow immune to the shareware concept and this article is somehow all about Windows platforms.  Quite untrue -- shareware existed in great quantities long before Windows 1.0 came out, as shareware too existed on the Mac and earlier Apple platforms, as shareware too existed on the Commodore platforms, as... well, you get the point.  Since the popularization of the shareware concept, it has held the same form on each popular platform of its day; pre-dating even DOS itself (there existed shareware for CP/M, as a straw example).  The article simply needs more sources.  Todd Vierling (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)