Why shareware or freeware?

May 31, 2005 5:42 PM

I am working on an academic project in which a significant question has come up -- why do people distribute software as freeware (not open source) or shareware in situations where it is just as easy to distribute it commercially, using systems like Palmgear or Handango? Is it because developers don't think these projects are as valuable, or are there other reasons? Does anyone have either written evidence or personal experiences to share?
posted by blahblahblah to technology (15 comments total)

Where are you drawing the line between "shareware" and "commercial"? There's no material difference between, say, shareware that locks up after 30 days, and commercial software that comes with a 30 day free trial version. I'm not personally familiar with Palmgear and Handango, but a quick look says they're "shareware" clearing houses rather than anything I'd define as "commercial" in the old-fashioned boxed software sense.

So the basic question you're asking is "Why distribute something yourself when you could use a third-party?". The answers to that are hopefully obvious.
posted by cillit bang at 5:52 PM on May 31, 2005

You might want to read up on what the free software foundation has to say about it. When I was part-creator of a little application that allowed people to track their reading lists on the web, it didn't occur to me to charge for it, for a few reasons

1. charging for it, to me, gave me a certain responsibility to live up to someone else's idea of what it was "worth" and I didn't care to have that debate
   
2. I don't need the money. I have a day job.
   
3. I don't know what this palmgear and handango is of which you speak, so I can't speak to relative ease, but putting something up on my site and saying "come get this if you want it" a few places is about as easy as it gets
   
4. I don't want to be part of the buying and selling world, in a general sense, to the extent that I can. Giving things away for free [in other ways too, like donating stuff to the Salvation Army, giving it away on Freecycle, trading favors for items on and on and on] helps my part of that and also helps other people with that as well.

In short, I don't know why you say "not open source" specifically since freeware/shareware sometimes is and sometimes isn't open source. Maybe you wonder why someone who isn't already an open source convert would not seek to maximize their profits? It seems like your default assumption is that there is some inherent value to selling an item rather than just giving it away or sharing it. There isn't for me. I want people to share with me, and so I share with them, it's pretty much that simple.
posted by jessamyn at 5:58 PM on May 31, 2005

Cillit bang, thanks for the help but that is not what I am asking. Perhaps I should have been more precise. Software can be distributed under a number of models: shareware, demoware, freeware, commercial, etc. Freeware means you give it away, no obligations. Shareware means you give it away, but people should pay if they use it. Demoware shuts down after a period of use, or is otherwise crippled. Commercial software is buy before you use.

The idea is that charging for software is easy, whether you do it yourself or go through a clearinghouse. So why do so many people either (a) not charge or (b) charge in a way that is not likely to be as profitable (shareware)?

Jessamyn, your answer is helpful - I specified not open source because I am not interested in cases where code is GPL'ed or otherwise requires free usage.
posted by blahblahblah at 6:00 PM on May 31, 2005

You might just as well ask why people contribute to charities or do other nice things for their fellow people. I'd imagine the reasons are as varied as the people releasing the software, but reasons could include:

1 I did it for myself, but there's no reason other people shouldn't be able to benefit as well.

2. It makes me feel good to think about people using my software, and more people will use it if it's free.

3. I want to get my name out there, and I know that higher distribution and usage levels will lead to that.

4. It took such a short time to create the program that I wouldn't feel right charging somebody for it.

etc., etc., etc....
posted by willnot at 6:02 PM on May 31, 2005

For those who wonder Handago and Palmgear are for handheld software. They sell software developed by others.

I would hesitate to use them because they probably skim something off the top of every sale. Also, you could end up buried beneath more popular applications in the application lists.

In terms of not going commercial patent laws and copyright issues also enter the picture. These days you never know whose toes you may be stepping on. I can't afford lawyers.
posted by srboisvert at 6:30 PM on May 31, 2005

You might just as well ask why people contribute to charities or do other nice things for their fellow people.

i think that sums it up rather nicely.

not everybody invests their time or money into things and expects some form of tangible return.

if a friend asks me to loan them some money, i'll "loan" it to them. however i won't require they pay me back by x date, if ever. instead, my only expectation is that they would do the same for me were i ever in their position.

as far as software goes, if i create what i think is a useful application or utility, i'll code/debug it and release it for free on the internet.
- i don't expect financial compensation for the time or effort i spent on coding it.
- i don't even expect praise, though it is appreciated.

instead, my only expectation is that another programmer out there will compensate for the utility derived from my program by initiating a project of his own to contribute to society. "i scratch your back, you scratch mine."

it's collectivism at it's finest. it's a shame you don't consider open-source software in your inquiry, because it is very much relevant to this discussion.
posted by Ziggy Zaga at 6:35 PM on May 31, 2005

The idea is that charging for software is easy, whether you do it yourself or go through a clearinghouse. So why do so many people either (a) not charge or (b) charge in a way that is not likely to be as profitable (shareware)?

Define "easy". I think you'll find that no matter how easy you might think it is to charge for software, giving it away is easier.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:52 PM on May 31, 2005

There's another reason, possibly.

As I see it, we've created a community (or a system or an institution or whatever term you like) that will continue to produce software well into the future. And while I don't write code myself, I'm much more a part of the free/shareware community than I am part of the Microsoft corporation.

Anyone read the post about the FedEx police? Imagine if they came to town and wanted to buy your police force. Suddenly, it's no longer the Akron PD or Atlanta's finest. It's The FedEx LawDogs or something. Even if they ran it the same as before, would you tolerate such a thing? I doubt it.

For pretty obvious reasons, we don't want important things to be in the hands of an entity that we don't trust. Sure, crappy software isn't as likely to get someone killed as a poorly regulated police department, but the principle is the same. The only reason we accept corporate control over one but not the other is that, well, as far back as we can remember, it's always been that way.
posted by Clay201 at 7:06 PM on May 31, 2005

mr_roboto is absolutely right in a lot of cases. It takes quite a bit when you start taking money in exchange for your pet project. People start demanding features, support, etc. Your taxes become more difficult. You probably need a lawyer and an accountant. You might want to think about liability insurance and definitely will want to incorporate .
posted by mmascolino at 7:12 PM on May 31, 2005

Well, as a programmer who hasn't tried to charge for his software since the early '90s, here are my reasons.

- It is never "just as easy" to sell it. I've never heard of the services you mentioned, but even if they handle everything related to order processing and key generation, that's not the hard part. If you charge money for it, you are obligated to support it, fix it, update it, help users install it. You are obligated to keep track of every penny you spend on it and every dollar you earn from it so you can correctly fill out all the extra pain-in-the-ass paperwork at tax time and give the IRS their cut of it (and don't forget self-employment tax!). I can scarcely imagine how ridiculously successful a shareware program would have to be in order to make the time I'd spend running the business worthwhile.

- I already have a job, and I'd rather have more free time than more money. If I wanted more money I would ask for a raise or get a better job. Even if I did decide to start a business it wouldn't be a software company. So why spend my free time running one?

- I write programs because I want to use them, not because I want money. I write programs because nobody has written a program that does what I want, or because the programs that do exist fit my needs poorly, or because the people who wrote them decided to charge more money for them than I am wiling to pay. I write programs simply because I want to have them; it costs me nothing to let other people use them too.

- Back when I was working as a contract programmer, I made more money giving my programs away than I did trying to sell them. More people were willing to use free stuff, which meant that more people saw my name in the about box, which meant that more potential clients thought of me when they needed custom work done. I made far more money doing contract work on other people's programs than I ever did trying to sell my own.

- It makes me feel good to give stuff away. It makes other people feel good, too, so much so that they write me effusive thank-you letters, and that just makes my day.

- What goes around, comes around. By giving my stuff away for free I help promote the notion that software does not have to cost money. If I give my code away, maybe other people will feel motivated to give their code away, and then the next time I need a program maybe there will be more options than the usual half a dozen pieces of shareware crap for $35 each.
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:38 PM on May 31, 2005

IMO, the more interesting question is "Why do some people choose the freeware model over the free software (e.g. GPL) model?"

The freeware model seems to be that the software is free to use (free beer) but not free to modify or even see the source code. If you are giving away the program, why not give away the code as well so that it could be extended by others?
posted by achmorrison at 9:44 PM on May 31, 2005

When I was younger, I made some screenwriting software and sold it at retail stores. I originally developed it because I couldn't afford the $300 that other companies wanted for screenwriting software (mine sold for $100). It was a MAJOR pain in the ass as I had to support it myself, but I needed the money so couldn't give it away free. I paid my way through film school with the profits.

I'm a meticulous person and would not be happy if I knew someone spent $100 on my software and couldn't get it working. As a result, I spent hours on the phone with customers who were clueless about basic computer functions. By year 2 of sales/school, I had an ulcer and constantly felt stressed.

When I was done university, I started giving the software away free online. You would not believe the relief of not having to answer phone calls from any more computer noobs. In addition, tons of people outside of Canada, who had never heard of my software, were now downloading it and enjoying it and sending me happy happy emails thanking me. Complete 180 from the previous experience. Were I ever in a position to develop software again I would give it away free or make it pretty cheap so I wouldn't feel as guilty when the noobs are lost.
posted by dobbs at 9:46 PM on May 31, 2005

In addition to the obligation involved in selling software (vs. giving it away), there's also a lot of technical communities where charging for software is seen as selling out or betraying a community.

And to add to dobbs' comments, there's a lot of people who get free software but feel as entitled to complain as a person who pays for software.
posted by anildash at 10:31 PM on May 31, 2005

i don't understand why you exclude gpl work. do you mean to exclude only work that is forced to be gpl because it extends other gpl code? because i have written various little things and generally release them under the gpl not because i have to, but because that way they stay free.

my reasons for doing so are the same as others, plus the fact that really, the software is more "interesting" rather than "good". i don't imagine many people actually wanting to pay for it.

also, if you're writing code like this it's likely (at least, it's the case for me) that you are not used to paying for software yourself. excluding whatever i use in my paid day-job, everything i use is free software. i don't use commercial software and i don't use "warez". so making my code free too is simply following the same behaviour. it's what "we" do.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:04 AM on June 1, 2005

People who pay for software expect technical support (and rightly so). I released some freeware because I thought other people might use it, but I didn't have time to fix problems they might find.
posted by Sibrax at 10:19 AM on June 1, 2005