 MospawWhat, too soon?Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
Mile High
kudos:1
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
Rants, Raves, and ..
| Still no free lunch Many moons ago, software development was a painstaking, slow process. Ever since the Web appeared as a communications force, development times as well as innovations in software have increased exponentially in frequency.
Many consumers have been caught up in the hype and must have the latest greatest version of every piece of software out there. For "mainstream" software such as Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop, you have to pay for a license to use the software.
Many other titles are "freeware" or "shareware" or "bundleware" as I call it. Bundleware installs (either overtly or covertly) additional software that's typically designed to provide information to a third party. The software author usually gets paid for bundling this software.
Bundleware titles, as useful or useless as they may be, are not free. They might even pose as freeware, but there is some sort of revenue being generated through them, and the authors get paid.
I absolutely do not condone such tactics as deleting other software on a machine, no matter its intent. A piece of software (including the odious bundleware) should install itself quietly without disrupting other software. Period. Anything else is an abuse of the user's machine, whether or not it's in the EULA legaleese.
With that said, what do people expect? Software might be free, but it's not without its costs.
I actually enjoy paying for good software, simply because I know I'm supporting the developer's efforts, and newer versions might be even better than the one I have. Shareware is a great concept. Piracy issues aside, the market determines the program's worth. I'm not forced to have nefarious code installed on my machine and who knows what information either shared with the universe or ads popped up on my screen.
I avoid freeware like the plague. Having Kazaa or a Divx player on my machine might be just short of the Second Coming in importance, but I'll be damned if I'm going to risk my private information, my data, and installed software to have it. I'd much rather pay $20 or $30 for a piece of software that I know isn't going to pollute my system.
I'm not defending the actions of developers who make bundleware, but they do deserve payment for their efforts, as we all do. They've simply chosen a really poor method of getting paid. Perhaps letting the market determine what your software is worth is a better way to go. Who here wouldn't pay $5 or even $10, $20, or $30 for a really well written piece of software that you use daily, especially if doing so would eliminate these data leeches and the code wars.
Free software is great. I even have some installed on my machines. But if having certain "free" programs requires putting my stuff at risk, I'll wait for a commercial version comes out. The cost is too high otherwise.
It all boils down to this: watch what you install on your machine and read those user agreements. You tend to get what you pay for.
--
Couldn't you use a little Zaffix today?
--
[text was edited by author 2002-04-24 11:50:22] |
