Found this on ZDNet... thought it could add to the topic.
[quote] Mac OS X 10.2: How Apple got it right...again!
David Coursey,
Executive Editor, AnchorDesk
Monday, August 19, 2002
Apple has added yet another item to the list of things it's done right--and that Microsoft ought to copy. This time it involves the way you'll be able to license the newly minted upgrade to its already elegant operating system.
Apple this week is releasing Mac OS X 10.2, code-named Jaguar, and you'll be able to buy a single upgrade for $129. But here's the deal: A license for up to five machines in the same household will cost only $199.
BY DOING SO, Apple is making it easy and inexpensive for its customers to get legal--easy and inexpensive especially compared to Microsoft's approach to multi-machine households.
Upgrading a Windows box to XP Home costs about $99 (about $70 more for XP Professional). Yes, that's less than Apple's upgrade. But here's the real kick in the pants: Upgrading a second machine costs the same as the first. And while Microsoft supposedly offers a discount on multiple upgrades, this seems to be more of a discount in theory than something customers can take advantage of.
Plus, Microsoft has cracked down on people who make "extra" copies of its operating systems with an authentication scheme that, while not nearly as draconian as some imagine, still pretty much enforces the one-license-per-system terms.
APPLE, BY CONTRAST, continues to make discs that can be installed across multiple machines--as many Mac owners doubtless do. It will not subject them to any such Microsoft-like enforcement mechanism. And when an upgrade is a relatively pricey $129 a machine, as Jaguar will be, the temptation will be strong to, ahem, violate the letter of Apple's licensing law.
Most people want to be honest, however. So given an easy-to-purchase $199 package for five machines, many people will do the right thing. What's more, Apple's customers, on the whole, are more willing to give the company money than Windows owners are likely to make a contribution to the billions Microsoft has lying around for a rainy day.
My "attaboy" for Apple doesn't mean I fully support what it's doing, however. The hefty $129 upgrade price penalizes early adopters, many of whom will wind up investing $250 in the two new OS X versions the company has released within the past year. That's not right. But the new five-unit pricing plan will ease the blow.
I'll soon have a review of Jaguar. My official copy arrived Friday (along with everyone else's), and while unofficial copies have been around since May, I haven't spent much time with the OS yet.
PHIL SCHILLER, Apple's head of marketing, is dropping by the TV studio today, and we'll record a brief demonstration that'll allow you to see a little of OS X 10.2 for yourself. My review may not appear for another week or so, while I play with networking and some of the advanced features, as well as the new .Mac online services.
What I know about OS X 10.2 already suggests it solves many of the challenges I faced during my "Month(s) with a Mac" experiment earlier this year. Likewise, the new 17-inch iMac adds just enough additional screen real estate to allow me to open all the windows I like to keep open at once. And at $1,999, the machine is a steal.
So today kicks off what promises to be a good week for Apple--and another occasion for Apple to show Microsoft, yet again, how it's supposed to be done.<hr></blockquote>
I can now say that I'm 100% sure there's no piracy protection in OS 10.2
My buddy works for an Apple reseller and they just got their copies in today. They installed it on a few computers on their network and they've had no problems.
Hopefully I'll be getting my legal copy tonight when I buy it from his company. Yes, I'm one of those honest people as well.
I consider myself an honest person, but before the offering of the family pack, I simply was unwilling (and almost couldn't afford) to upgrade all my Macs at home (4). I tried to compensate my poor ethics by ensuring that I paid for EVERY upgrade at full price. Meaning, although I had bought OS X for $120, I still paid full price for OS X.1 ($120?). And I never missed an upgrade. However, I did not buy one for every machine.
Now I can pay $200 for a 5 machine license. This is fantastic! It always bothered me that I had illegal copies on my other machines.
As for the registration. I don't like the idea of hassling with registrations. Looking up serial numbers everytime you re-install your OS. But I will not complain much because I think $200 for a 5 machine license is VERY reasonable. $40/machine is a great price point in my opinion.
I am VERY against forcing the customer to register WITH Apple in order to use the product.
However, I'm not too against using registration codes which are checked across the network for dup #s.
My ethics are this: I do not want any company to lose business due to piracy.
What does that mean?
If somewhat fun game costs $1200.00, I would NEVER pay for it. I would never purchase it. It is simply not worth the price. Therefore, the company does not have my business. If I pirate the game, they did not lose a sale. They never had a sale. They did not lose a sale to piracy. They lost a sale due to pricing.
If that same game cost $29.99, then I likely would pay for it. It is worth the price. Therefore I gladly purchase the game, even if I have free access to it. I do this most all time.
I paid $1200 for Mathematica because it is worth $1200 to me.
I paid $250 for OfficeX because it is worth it to me.
I paid $120 for GraphicConverter because it is worth it to me. (Yes I sent them extra money!)
However, I there have been other software that I haven't paid for becuase it was either way over priced for *my* needs (photoshop).
But without a doubt, all the software that I couldn't live without and even some that I can, but was still worth the price... I have purchased.
There is a flaw in these ethics... can you find it?
<strong>However, I there have been other software that I haven't paid for becuase it was either way over priced for *my* needs (photoshop).
There is a flaw in these ethics... can you find it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You stole photoshop ergo you are a pirate.
I'm sure we all do it a bit, but the truth is very simple - either you buy software you need or you don't use it. There is no middle ground.
I think Apple realise that network locking any software actually encourages 100% piracy, whereas allowing multiple installs means people will buy at least one copy.
It's a shame the 5 for $199 doesn't apply to businesses.
I had a good response typed out, then I quit OW by accident
Now, Im going to quickly type a few points.
-Apple has always been for-profit, but they have not always focused on profit. They have lead the industry and innovated, but have often been unable to execute a profitable business strategy and watched as poor imitations make the money.
-'Win-win scenario': The success of Apple does not have to come a the expense of the current user base. I don mind watering my plants, but I don't want to die of thirst.
-A critical a discerning customer is good for a company. This pushes the company to maintain high standards (eg BMW, MB). The 'apologist' is the worst customer Apple could have because the forgive the mis-steps and treat Apple w/kid-gloves. The rest of the world won't. As Apple grows and changes, Mac users need to be discriminating and let Apple know when they are not happy.
-The essence of the Mac? It's the stuff that keeps the heat sink on the CPU, no DNA involved. C'mon, do you use a Mac? Isn't there something that makes a Mac a Mac? Something that the imitators never get?
-I paid for a copy of OSX for each of my Macs...what was I thinking. Well, I have made good money over the years by using Macs. It seems fair that I would pay for the OS.
-Don't confuse my original post. I don't think 1 Infinite Loop is a Hippie commune. I really don't see why Apple has allowed OS piracy to go on as long as it as.
Apple has always been about profit. It's a publicly traded company. They'll do what they can to ensure a good revenue stream.
That question is if the focus will be short term or long term. This is always the question companies should ask, but hardly do with the focus on quarterly returns.
All their innovations are focused on one thing: to make consumers buy more of their stuff. Steve's a little wacky, but if he doesn't make money, he'll be out on his butt. Providing the shareholders can find someone with an RDF as big as Steve's (can I say that in a family forum?).
However, I there have been other software that I haven't paid for becuase it was either way over priced for *my* needs (photoshop).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that the "full" version of Photoshop is about 65% features that nobody will ever use (your "normal" user) - so I went out and bought Photoshop Elements 2.0, and got rid of my pirated copy of Photoshop 7. Works great, runs faster (less bloat), and does everything I need - plus, its legal. I feel good about it.
Stealing is wrong. It doesn't matter if you don't think its worth it. I don't think a Volvo s40 is worth the price, does that mean I should steal it?
Uh oh....getting off topic...must resist urge to start...pirating debate.....aaaarrrrggghh</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I wasn't talking about moralistic issues, such as "stealing is wrong". There is a problem with self-consistancy in my ethical stance. My (I'll admit poor) ethics are based on a victimless crime. Since Adobe/Microsoft/etc did not suffer a loss of a sale, NOR did the suffer loss of material (I provided the CDR), their is no victim. Without a victim can it be considered ethical?
The problem I see with my ethical stance is that there is a potential victim.
The victim is the company which produces a similar less expensive product which I would purchase if I didn't pirate the over priced product.
An example is this. Let's say I pirate Adobe GoLive 6.0. I don't really make webpages, I just want to fool around with it to learn to make web pages... but I'm not willing to spend $400 just to fool around with a product I will hardly use. In other words, I'm not in the market for a $400 html editor. For $400, Adobe never had my business. It's not a product that I really want. So where is the victim? The victim is some other company that sells a $49.00 html editor which doesn't do as much, but would be a product I might be willing to buy to fool around with.
------------------------
Somebody else had a great example of Adobe's stripped down version of photoshop that costs a lot less. Sure, they didn't loss a sale on the full version of photoshop, but they lost a sale on the lesser version. What do I do to rectify this. I buy the lesser expensive, lesser feature product so they don't lose a sale despite whether or not I use the full version.
-------------------------
I bought GraphicConverter even though I have photoshop at my disposal. I bought HomePage even though I never used it because I had GoLive. However, if I didn't have GoLive, I would have used Homepage, so I bought it to make sure they got their business.
--------------------------
Hey, no doubt piracy is illegal and it hurts developers, which is the worst part about it. What I try to do is operate in a way that doesn't hurt the developers. I don't want a developer to lose a sale becuase of my piracy.
-------------------------
I buy a lot of software. many, many thousands of dollars
Yes. No arguement. But did Adobe lose any money? That is my question.
[quote]Originally posted by Blackcat:
<strong>
I'm sure we all do it a bit, but the truth is very simple - either you buy software you need or you don't use it. There is no middle ground.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about software that you don't need and have no intention of buying no matter if it can be pirated or not? In-other-words, you are not a potential customer. No doubt it is illegal. That is not the question. The question is it ethical? I think it likely is not ethical because there are problems associated with it no matter how careful you are at trying not to 'steal' business.
Stealing is wrong. It doesn't matter if you don't think its worth it. I don't think a Volvo s40 is worth the price, does that mean I should steal it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that is not a good example. Because Volvo loses money on the sale of the car AND they actually lose physical material. In the case of software piracy, there is no material lost... As far as I can tell the only thing that can be stolen is a potential sale.
Really I'm not. It is wrong. I think everybody would be better off if nobody pirated software.
However, 0 piracy is a bit less than realistic. So with that in mind, I hope people at least try to minimize the negative effects of piracy. That is what I'm speaking of... Trying to at least minimize the effects and trying to insure that a company gets compensated for their effort of making a product with good value.
[quote]Because Volvo loses money on the sale of the car AND they actually lose physical material. In the case of software piracy, there is no material lost... As far as I can tell the only thing that can be stolen is a potential sale. <hr></blockquote>
How was that again???
Volvo sells cars that cost $$ make, produce and store. They pay designers, factory workers and shippers. There is property costs, investment in machinery, a whole myriad of things tied up in production.
Apple's costs are similar, just distributed differently--much higher in intellectual labor costs.
How do figure that just because Volvo makes a car and Apple makes a CD that one is more easily justified in stealing from Apple? BTW Volvo doesn't give a sh*t about the physical material that is the car, except when it is stolen. If Volvo could sell virtual cars I can assure you they would be much happier and more profitable.
Volvo sells cars that cost $$ make, produce and store. They pay designers, factory workers and shippers. There is property costs, investment in machinery, a whole myriad of things tied up in production.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, both a software company and a hardware company puts a lot into the production of their products. There is a large investement made by both hardware and software companies.
My point was, if a potential Volvo customer steals a Volvo that they were otherwise going to purchase, Volvo loses twice: They lose the potential sale of a car to 'potential' customer AND they lose the ability to sell the stolen Volvo to any other customer. They lose the potential sale of the car (which helps compensate their investement in the car) and they lose the car itself (capital).
With a software company there is a difference (I'm not saying the difference justifies the action... I'm just saying there is one).
If a customer "copies" a program, the software company only loses the potential sale, because the physical CD is not stolen and CAN be sold to another customer.
SO... with that said, IF you can assure that the company is NOT losing a potential sale, the losses the company has due to piracy is minimized.
This is impossible to do with a physical product.
Read carefully...
A better example of the Volvo/hardware stealing vs. piracy would be that you wouldn't physically steal a volvo, BUT you'd pay some Chinese company to make a Volvo knockOFF. I'm saying that if the people who would normally buy Volvos STILL bought Volvos and only those who would never buy Volvos bought the knockoffs... Volvo would sell just as many cars because those who would buy them despite there being a knockoff is still buying them. Of course, if the knockoffs would have to be of the same exact quality. I guess it could hurt the "status" of driving a Volvo since more people would be driving knockoffs. But I don't think status transmits to software.
Why would somebody buy a knockoff if it was the same quality as the original? Because the knockoffs are illegal AND people have ethics.
Before anybody knee-jerk responds, saying a knockoff WOULD hurt Volvo sales. You have to remember I am putting the constraint that ALL potential Volvo customers CAN NOT and DO NOT purchase the knockoffs.
To clear things up... let's say Volvos aren't exported to Etheopia because not one person in Etheopia can afford it (hypathetical example). So there are no Volvos sold in Etheopia. Now some Chinese company makes a perfect Volvo knockoff, which is illegal, and sales it in Etheopia for 1/2 the price. Would Volvo be losing money? They hadn't ever sold and weren't ever going to sell a car in Etheopia.
Yes, you can get into the details of brand status and the status of Volvo goes down when poorer people are driving them, etc... But I just want to make it clear, my point can only be made when there is NOT a lose of a sale.
Apple's costs are similar, just distributed differently--much higher in intellectual labor costs.
How do figure that just because Volvo makes a car and Apple makes a CD that one is more easily justified in stealing from Apple? BTW Volvo doesn't give a sh*t about the physical material that is the car, except when it is stolen. If Volvo could sell virtual cars I can assure you they would be much happier and more profitable.
Comments
[quote] Mac OS X 10.2: How Apple got it right...again!
David Coursey,
Executive Editor, AnchorDesk
Monday, August 19, 2002
Apple has added yet another item to the list of things it's done right--and that Microsoft ought to copy. This time it involves the way you'll be able to license the newly minted upgrade to its already elegant operating system.
Apple this week is releasing Mac OS X 10.2, code-named Jaguar, and you'll be able to buy a single upgrade for $129. But here's the deal: A license for up to five machines in the same household will cost only $199.
BY DOING SO, Apple is making it easy and inexpensive for its customers to get legal--easy and inexpensive especially compared to Microsoft's approach to multi-machine households.
Upgrading a Windows box to XP Home costs about $99 (about $70 more for XP Professional). Yes, that's less than Apple's upgrade. But here's the real kick in the pants: Upgrading a second machine costs the same as the first. And while Microsoft supposedly offers a discount on multiple upgrades, this seems to be more of a discount in theory than something customers can take advantage of.
Plus, Microsoft has cracked down on people who make "extra" copies of its operating systems with an authentication scheme that, while not nearly as draconian as some imagine, still pretty much enforces the one-license-per-system terms.
APPLE, BY CONTRAST, continues to make discs that can be installed across multiple machines--as many Mac owners doubtless do. It will not subject them to any such Microsoft-like enforcement mechanism. And when an upgrade is a relatively pricey $129 a machine, as Jaguar will be, the temptation will be strong to, ahem, violate the letter of Apple's licensing law.
Most people want to be honest, however. So given an easy-to-purchase $199 package for five machines, many people will do the right thing. What's more, Apple's customers, on the whole, are more willing to give the company money than Windows owners are likely to make a contribution to the billions Microsoft has lying around for a rainy day.
My "attaboy" for Apple doesn't mean I fully support what it's doing, however. The hefty $129 upgrade price penalizes early adopters, many of whom will wind up investing $250 in the two new OS X versions the company has released within the past year. That's not right. But the new five-unit pricing plan will ease the blow.
I'll soon have a review of Jaguar. My official copy arrived Friday (along with everyone else's), and while unofficial copies have been around since May, I haven't spent much time with the OS yet.
PHIL SCHILLER, Apple's head of marketing, is dropping by the TV studio today, and we'll record a brief demonstration that'll allow you to see a little of OS X 10.2 for yourself. My review may not appear for another week or so, while I play with networking and some of the advanced features, as well as the new .Mac online services.
What I know about OS X 10.2 already suggests it solves many of the challenges I faced during my "Month(s) with a Mac" experiment earlier this year. Likewise, the new 17-inch iMac adds just enough additional screen real estate to allow me to open all the windows I like to keep open at once. And at $1,999, the machine is a steal.
So today kicks off what promises to be a good week for Apple--and another occasion for Apple to show Microsoft, yet again, how it's supposed to be done.<hr></blockquote>
Mac Guru
[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: Mac Guru ]</p>
My buddy works for an Apple reseller and they just got their copies in today. They installed it on a few computers on their network and they've had no problems.
Hopefully I'll be getting my legal copy tonight when I buy it from his company. Yes, I'm one of those honest people as well.
I am incredibly happy Apple is offering this.
I consider myself an honest person, but before the offering of the family pack, I simply was unwilling (and almost couldn't afford) to upgrade all my Macs at home (4). I tried to compensate my poor ethics by ensuring that I paid for EVERY upgrade at full price. Meaning, although I had bought OS X for $120, I still paid full price for OS X.1 ($120?). And I never missed an upgrade. However, I did not buy one for every machine.
Now I can pay $200 for a 5 machine license. This is fantastic! It always bothered me that I had illegal copies on my other machines.
As for the registration. I don't like the idea of hassling with registrations. Looking up serial numbers everytime you re-install your OS. But I will not complain much because I think $200 for a 5 machine license is VERY reasonable. $40/machine is a great price point in my opinion.
<strong>Bereskin himself said Apple was not using any "draconian" anti-piracy measures.</strong><hr></blockquote>
FinalCutPro has no anti-piracy measures?
Seems foolish.
I am VERY against forcing the customer to register WITH Apple in order to use the product.
However, I'm not too against using registration codes which are checked across the network for dup #s.
My ethics are this: I do not want any company to lose business due to piracy.
What does that mean?
If somewhat fun game costs $1200.00, I would NEVER pay for it. I would never purchase it. It is simply not worth the price. Therefore, the company does not have my business. If I pirate the game, they did not lose a sale. They never had a sale. They did not lose a sale to piracy. They lost a sale due to pricing.
If that same game cost $29.99, then I likely would pay for it. It is worth the price. Therefore I gladly purchase the game, even if I have free access to it. I do this most all time.
I paid $1200 for Mathematica because it is worth $1200 to me.
I paid $250 for OfficeX because it is worth it to me.
I paid $120 for GraphicConverter because it is worth it to me. (Yes I sent them extra money!)
However, I there have been other software that I haven't paid for becuase it was either way over priced for *my* needs (photoshop).
But without a doubt, all the software that I couldn't live without and even some that I can, but was still worth the price... I have purchased.
There is a flaw in these ethics... can you find it?
<strong>
There is a flaw in these ethics... can you find it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well....since you asked
Stealing is wrong. It doesn't matter if you don't think its worth it. I don't think a Volvo s40 is worth the price, does that mean I should steal it?
Uh oh....getting off topic...must resist urge to start...pirating debate.....aaaarrrrggghh
<strong>However, I there have been other software that I haven't paid for becuase it was either way over priced for *my* needs (photoshop).
There is a flaw in these ethics... can you find it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You stole photoshop ergo you are a pirate.
I'm sure we all do it a bit, but the truth is very simple - either you buy software you need or you don't use it. There is no middle ground.
I think Apple realise that network locking any software actually encourages 100% piracy, whereas allowing multiple installs means people will buy at least one copy.
It's a shame the 5 for $199 doesn't apply to businesses.
Now, Im going to quickly type a few points.
-Apple has always been for-profit, but they have not always focused on profit. They have lead the industry and innovated, but have often been unable to execute a profitable business strategy and watched as poor imitations make the money.
-'Win-win scenario': The success of Apple does not have to come a the expense of the current user base. I don mind watering my plants, but I don't want to die of thirst.
-A critical a discerning customer is good for a company. This pushes the company to maintain high standards (eg BMW, MB). The 'apologist' is the worst customer Apple could have because the forgive the mis-steps and treat Apple w/kid-gloves. The rest of the world won't. As Apple grows and changes, Mac users need to be discriminating and let Apple know when they are not happy.
-The essence of the Mac? It's the stuff that keeps the heat sink on the CPU, no DNA involved. C'mon, do you use a Mac? Isn't there something that makes a Mac a Mac? Something that the imitators never get?
-I paid for a copy of OSX for each of my Macs...what was I thinking. Well, I have made good money over the years by using Macs. It seems fair that I would pay for the OS.
-Don't confuse my original post. I don't think 1 Infinite Loop is a Hippie commune. I really don't see why Apple has allowed OS piracy to go on as long as it as.
-Screw Chris Bangle
-Screw Chris Bangle<hr></blockquote>
Don't like the new 7Series?
Apple has always been about profit. It's a publicly traded company. They'll do what they can to ensure a good revenue stream.
That question is if the focus will be short term or long term. This is always the question companies should ask, but hardly do with the focus on quarterly returns.
All their innovations are focused on one thing: to make consumers buy more of their stuff. Steve's a little wacky, but if he doesn't make money, he'll be out on his butt. Providing the shareholders can find someone with an RDF as big as Steve's (can I say that in a family forum?).
[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: GardenOfEarthlyDelights ]</p>
<strong>Oh,... I almost forgot.
However, I there have been other software that I haven't paid for becuase it was either way over priced for *my* needs (photoshop).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that the "full" version of Photoshop is about 65% features that nobody will ever use (your "normal" user) - so I went out and bought Photoshop Elements 2.0, and got rid of my pirated copy of Photoshop 7. Works great, runs faster (less bloat), and does everything I need - plus, its legal. I feel good about it.
Since when? I tried it sometime ago, and came to the conclusion that it was port 2000-3000...which is what Brickhouse is setup for me...
As for random port hopping, i doubt it...worse comes to worst, you can always block ALL unused ports...more safe that way anyway.
<strong>
Well....since you asked
Stealing is wrong. It doesn't matter if you don't think its worth it. I don't think a Volvo s40 is worth the price, does that mean I should steal it?
Uh oh....getting off topic...must resist urge to start...pirating debate.....aaaarrrrggghh</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I wasn't talking about moralistic issues, such as "stealing is wrong". There is a problem with self-consistancy in my ethical stance. My (I'll admit poor) ethics are based on a victimless crime. Since Adobe/Microsoft/etc did not suffer a loss of a sale, NOR did the suffer loss of material (I provided the CDR), their is no victim. Without a victim can it be considered ethical?
The problem I see with my ethical stance is that there is a potential victim.
The victim is the company which produces a similar less expensive product which I would purchase if I didn't pirate the over priced product.
An example is this. Let's say I pirate Adobe GoLive 6.0. I don't really make webpages, I just want to fool around with it to learn to make web pages... but I'm not willing to spend $400 just to fool around with a product I will hardly use. In other words, I'm not in the market for a $400 html editor. For $400, Adobe never had my business. It's not a product that I really want. So where is the victim? The victim is some other company that sells a $49.00 html editor which doesn't do as much, but would be a product I might be willing to buy to fool around with.
------------------------
Somebody else had a great example of Adobe's stripped down version of photoshop that costs a lot less. Sure, they didn't loss a sale on the full version of photoshop, but they lost a sale on the lesser version. What do I do to rectify this. I buy the lesser expensive, lesser feature product so they don't lose a sale despite whether or not I use the full version.
-------------------------
I bought GraphicConverter even though I have photoshop at my disposal. I bought HomePage even though I never used it because I had GoLive. However, if I didn't have GoLive, I would have used Homepage, so I bought it to make sure they got their business.
--------------------------
Hey, no doubt piracy is illegal and it hurts developers, which is the worst part about it. What I try to do is operate in a way that doesn't hurt the developers. I don't want a developer to lose a sale becuase of my piracy.
-------------------------
I buy a lot of software. many, many thousands of dollars
<strong>
You stole photoshop ergo you are a pirate.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. No arguement. But did Adobe lose any money? That is my question.
[quote]Originally posted by Blackcat:
<strong>
I'm sure we all do it a bit, but the truth is very simple - either you buy software you need or you don't use it. There is no middle ground.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about software that you don't need and have no intention of buying no matter if it can be pirated or not? In-other-words, you are not a potential customer. No doubt it is illegal. That is not the question. The question is it ethical? I think it likely is not ethical because there are problems associated with it no matter how careful you are at trying not to 'steal' business.
<strong>
Well....since you asked
Stealing is wrong. It doesn't matter if you don't think its worth it. I don't think a Volvo s40 is worth the price, does that mean I should steal it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that is not a good example. Because Volvo loses money on the sale of the car AND they actually lose physical material. In the case of software piracy, there is no material lost... As far as I can tell the only thing that can be stolen is a potential sale.
It sounds as if I'm trying to justify piracy.
Really I'm not. It is wrong. I think everybody would be better off if nobody pirated software.
However, 0 piracy is a bit less than realistic. So with that in mind, I hope people at least try to minimize the negative effects of piracy. That is what I'm speaking of... Trying to at least minimize the effects and trying to insure that a company gets compensated for their effort of making a product with good value.
How was that again???
Volvo sells cars that cost $$ make, produce and store. They pay designers, factory workers and shippers. There is property costs, investment in machinery, a whole myriad of things tied up in production.
Apple's costs are similar, just distributed differently--much higher in intellectual labor costs.
How do figure that just because Volvo makes a car and Apple makes a CD that one is more easily justified in stealing from Apple? BTW Volvo doesn't give a sh*t about the physical material that is the car, except when it is stolen. If Volvo could sell virtual cars I can assure you they would be much happier and more profitable.
[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
Affordable OS licensing, QuickBooks, StarOffice.
2003: Begun these Office wars have...
Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
How was that again???
Volvo sells cars that cost $$ make, produce and store. They pay designers, factory workers and shippers. There is property costs, investment in machinery, a whole myriad of things tied up in production.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, both a software company and a hardware company puts a lot into the production of their products. There is a large investement made by both hardware and software companies.
My point was, if a potential Volvo customer steals a Volvo that they were otherwise going to purchase, Volvo loses twice: They lose the potential sale of a car to 'potential' customer AND they lose the ability to sell the stolen Volvo to any other customer. They lose the potential sale of the car (which helps compensate their investement in the car) and they lose the car itself (capital).
With a software company there is a difference (I'm not saying the difference justifies the action... I'm just saying there is one).
If a customer "copies" a program, the software company only loses the potential sale, because the physical CD is not stolen and CAN be sold to another customer.
SO... with that said, IF you can assure that the company is NOT losing a potential sale, the losses the company has due to piracy is minimized.
This is impossible to do with a physical product.
Read carefully...
A better example of the Volvo/hardware stealing vs. piracy would be that you wouldn't physically steal a volvo, BUT you'd pay some Chinese company to make a Volvo knockOFF. I'm saying that if the people who would normally buy Volvos STILL bought Volvos and only those who would never buy Volvos bought the knockoffs... Volvo would sell just as many cars because those who would buy them despite there being a knockoff is still buying them. Of course, if the knockoffs would have to be of the same exact quality. I guess it could hurt the "status" of driving a Volvo since more people would be driving knockoffs. But I don't think status transmits to software.
Why would somebody buy a knockoff if it was the same quality as the original? Because the knockoffs are illegal AND people have ethics.
Before anybody knee-jerk responds, saying a knockoff WOULD hurt Volvo sales. You have to remember I am putting the constraint that ALL potential Volvo customers CAN NOT and DO NOT purchase the knockoffs.
To clear things up... let's say Volvos aren't exported to Etheopia because not one person in Etheopia can afford it (hypathetical example). So there are no Volvos sold in Etheopia. Now some Chinese company makes a perfect Volvo knockoff, which is illegal, and sales it in Etheopia for 1/2 the price. Would Volvo be losing money? They hadn't ever sold and weren't ever going to sell a car in Etheopia.
Yes, you can get into the details of brand status and the status of Volvo goes down when poorer people are driving them, etc... But I just want to make it clear, my point can only be made when there is NOT a lose of a sale.
Apple's costs are similar, just distributed differently--much higher in intellectual labor costs.
How do figure that just because Volvo makes a car and Apple makes a CD that one is more easily justified in stealing from Apple? BTW Volvo doesn't give a sh*t about the physical material that is the car, except when it is stolen. If Volvo could sell virtual cars I can assure you they would be much happier and more profitable.
[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ][/QB]