Why Do Some People Balk at Paying for Software?

The problem is that a piece of software isn't something you can hold, like a book.

I also think that EA's new internet verification idea has a lot of merit. If Stardock sold a lifetime subscription to their game instead of a copy of it, then they could much more easily defend it.

A lifetime subscription is something that makes a lot more sense to people not to steal than does an idea.

You cannot hold a concert, nor hold a play.

One cannot handle education.

We pay for that.

And... why should it make a difference anyways?

Yes, but people do not buy the play, they buy admission.



Ah, but you buy a degree, not the education. Otherwise I would just go out, pirate some text-books (i would be suprised if you could actually do this), and save myself a lot of money.

You're also not buying the software here either, you're buying a license to use it.

To some people however,budget restraints are a key factor.A case in point,my recent post about AVG. Am I happy with the software/service? Yes. Is it worth paying for? Certainly.Can I afford to be without anti-virus protection? Absolutely not.Should I spend some of my now limited income on something that has a free and equally capable replacement? Right now,no.I was truly impressed by the objectiveness of the replies. Nobody "bashed" any products,just offered up an opinion of what they were using. If Stardock was to charge for ObjectDock Free or CFX Free tomorrow, I would have to do without it for now.That does not make it a bad product, I'd have no reason to whine or bash Stardock. I'm not entitled to it.It's a trial,it's all good and I'll gladly upgrade to the paid versions...when I can. I paid for my WC sub and ODNT was a gift but I know that doesn't mean I get everything on the site for free.I may be in the minority,but that's my thinking on the subject.As for bootleg,pirated,warez,cracked,or whatever they want to call it,it's still stolen,it's still wrong,and imho,no different than robbing someone at gunpoint. Using a mouse shouldn't make it any less criminal.

You already said it all, IslandDog.

In fact, it's all been said, a million different ways, a million different times in an even greater number of situations.

This whole topic is mostly moot.

There'll always be those who complain; baseless or not.

We already know, logically, their complaints are baseless.

We know they're likely, in some capacity, not considering everything:

We know they're likely buying lunch out often.

Or driving when they can walk.

Or ordering in more than their budget allows.

Or just bought that new gaming console.

Or game for the console.

Or that $150 dollar pair of jeans.

Or buying that new power tool.

Or new couch, sofa, ottoman.

Or that new computer monitor, PC speakers, DVD player.

Or buying that little bit of 'extra', sometimes necessary, other times not.

Or in some way having a champagne taste on a beer budget.

In all corners of this globe you'll find those who complain about being tired all of the time, while taking no dietary steps to improve it. Or ensuring their sleep patterns are constant.

In all corners of this globe you'll find those who complain about others while doing little to improve the situation themselves.

In all corners of the globe you'll find people's actions contradicting their words; their lifestyle habits, choices, betraying their spoken rhetoric.

Why these kinds of things are always topics will always evade me. I truly don't understand the modus operandi of a topic like this. While I'm not bashing anyone in this thread, including who started it: I simply don't see the point in discussing these things ad nauseam when all who know: agree, and all who do not: will not.

What you're really addressing is some people's seemingly endless living contradictions: something all logical people know is bad and do their best not to engage in themselves.

I do understand, and wholly agree, with your sentiments though, IslandDog.

"Never explain; your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you.
- Elbert Hubbard"

All budgets are limited. And making people to pay for something (twice) they already got isnt going to win a popularity award for you. Since the linked thread was about more or less "optional" content.

People never rant about software they have to buy to get it at all. If they never got it they would never visit its forums to do so.

........if these people havent worked out 'by now' that money makes the world revolve.....then they need to get out more.. I dont complain to K Mart because I have to pay for shoes, or the supermarket because I have to pay for my 3 bottles of cola and 20 packets of 2 minute noodles.......

why should stardock and its software ect, be any different? its not, they need to get a grip imo.

It's a matter of expectation. Take EditPad, for example. I downloaded the free EditPadLite when I got tired of Notepad. It's a decent text editor. EditPadPro has more features, but a price tag. I don't care about those features (if I want to edit specialized files, I have programs I paid for that do them better than EPP). Then I found NotePad2. It has many of the features of EPP. But it's free.

Thus, the expected value of EditPadPro is nil. When you can get 90% of the features of something for free somewhere else, then version that have a cost are meaningless.

Contrast this with the oXygenXML editor. This is the best XML editing tool possibly in this galaxy. It also has a substantial dollar value attached to it. But no free tool comes anywhere close to having the featureset (Emacs with proper add-ons can come semi-close, but Emacs has the worst user interface this side of VI). So the expected value of the product is substantial.

When you can get something great for free, and you've been able to do it for years, you get used to it. You expect it. And thus, you are disappointed when it is no longer free. Indeed, it can feel very much like a bait-and-switch when it happens. But if it's always cost money for something, then people don't have a problem with it continuing to cost money.

I cant believe someone actually advocated Bioware/EA's nasty new copy protection scheme. Are you mad?

It basically comes down to this, as someone else mentioned, people dont like it because to them its not tangible.

I don't see it this way and dont mind paying some money for good software but that might be because I work for a software developer myself.

I think its because few people actually understand what actually goes on behind the scenes in order to develop a piece of marketable software.

It is a time-consuming process and to scoff at the idea of someone charging for a piece of software they created that had a significant amount of effort put into it is just silly.

I have no issue paying for a piece of software but I do have issue with renting it.

It used to be that when you bought software you actually owned something. You owned the functionality that you spent your money on. You didn't buy free upgrades and you bought the software "as is" but you did purchase and own the ability to run that software forever.

Just like in the old days if you bought an album you actually owned it. You could play it anytime you wanted, you could record it onto to any other media that you wanted, you were only prohibited from selling copies made, but the idea is that you bought something that would not disappear simply because some artifical time limit expired.

20 years later you could dust off that floppy and boot up that old 286 machine and it would still work the same way it did 20 years ago. That is what I spend my money for. I object to having to spend my money on something that gives me a time limited right to the functionality but at some later date I no longer have rights to.

Some things like anti-virus stuff is inevitable and in fact makes some legitimate sense in that without updated virus definitions the software becomes useless. But it really pisses me off that every year I have to "buy" a new firewall. The firewall is a set functionality that requires no update to operate. Why suddenly at some point in time does my firewall stop working? Because the software developer put in extra development time (and thereby made the software more expensive) to put in code to specifically make it work that way. That extra effort put in by the developer certainly is not for my benefit, I neither asked for or want such functionality.

The problem is I object to renting things, I prefer to own. In real life I refuse to pay interest. I pay my credit card off each and every month. I pay cash for my cars. I believe that the only legitimate purchase on credit is a home and even then I'm a 20% down fixed 30 year (actually 15 year is far better) kind of guy.

I have no problem buying software that I like. I just hate having to rent it. But perhaps in this modern age software is just like love.

You can't buy it but you sure can rent it. I guess this implies what kind of business the software business has become.

"You cannot hold a concert, nor hold a play.

One cannot handle education.

We pay for that.

And... why should it make a difference anyways?"

LordZarth, i disagreed with your universal generalization that we pay for our education. It depends on where one lives, in Canada, the Canada, education is subsidized by the Canadian government, and in some European countries, education is free because the public pays taxes to subsidized education. Health care in canada is a public good too in canada, hence it is heavily subsidized.

However i agree with the rest of your point, if people like to be compensated for their creative work, then they are entitled to charge others for it at fair market price.

Excellent responses Slydrivel! I read and came to comment, and saw where you had given the answer and dotta the eyes.

People can get used to anything, including not needing to pay for certain services. Just like you are used to not having to pay for posting in this forum. Still the server(s) cost money to run but its still free. Would you cheer at stardock if they suddenly made fees for posting and downloading updates?

Certainly not since you want you spend your limited money on something else. And not having the ability to get support isnt nice either.

So you cannot blame anyone to be angry on someone who suddenly made a former free service requiering payment.

People have emotions. And the WILL express them. Thats far older than money.

Nothing in life is free. You have to give in order to get. it's that simple. whether it's time , money, energy , or thought you still have to pay in some way. This includes free education in canada or elsewhere.

Even free software , you have to give up something.(time, information,money ,etc.)

Like wiz said,if budget constrains, you wait till you can purchase.

I'd like to say "kids these days just don't get it" but I think much of the whining is a broad agegroup. I doubt it will ever change unfortunately.

Here is a slightly different take on it that will not be a factor for US residents...

I use Adobe Photoshop V7 (bought years ago, fully licensed, legitimate copy). I would like to upgrade it to CS3 for the new features and RAW support for new cameras. Got to adobe website, see price at $649 (approx £325). To me, this product is worth that price and I have no issues paying for it.

However, I am in the UK so Adobe re-directs me to their UK site, and these are the options I get:

Boxed product with shipping - £570
Download only - £587

This is blatant profiteering of the worst type, £250 extra to download the exact same product because I'm in the UK. Not going to happen! If Adobe want my £325, they are welcome to it for their product - but no way on the planet am I going to stump up nearly £600 for it.

Microsoft are as bad with their pricing. These companies need to look very closely at their own business practices before complaining about piracy.

Good try....but [with to what you refer] you aren't 'renting love' it's 'sex'....and then the analogy falls apart....;)

You are right. Have you tried after market sites? I found Adobe Writer for about $120 at an after market site - fully licensed and all - and a lot cheaper than the vendor. And other than shipping charges (more for across the pond - but not extravagantly so) the price was the same whether you were in London, or Timbuktu.

Part of the additional cost from the UK site is VAT @ 17.5%

But that doesn't excuse the rest.

I'm wondering why Brad brought all this up in the original thread anyway? What is causing this complaining? Is he getting ripped off? All I'll say is that there are a whole lot of people in this country, the USA, who feel that they are getting ripped off all the time. When you see CEO's of failed companies walking away with millions in their pockets......what sort of example is that? Being rewarded for failure? Not only that but the employees of these failed companies are out of work and often lose their pensions too. All because the people who run the companies were in it for short term profit and ran the company into the ground without regard for the employees or the public in general. When you see oil companies reporting record profits and then you go to the pump and get it stuck up your......The examples go on and on. It's no wonder people try to get something for nothing. It's human nature. What do you do if you are getting screwed by corporations consistently? What can you do? People are getting fed up with new and better that is actually full of problems and costs more. People are getting fed up with paying for software that is in reality still in beta. Shoddy products make pissed off people. Have a nice day.

Yeah - being ripped of by the government is OK I guess   

So, yes, I could live with £325 + 17.5% VAT which is still nearly £200 less (but still doesn't explain the £17 mark-up for the download only version over the retail box - very strange)

The after-market option is a good idea, worth investigating, thanks.

But I believe I have stumbled on the best legal method for Photoshop CS3 at least - I've found a training company offering courses in digital photography techniques that include an offer to purchase Photoshop CS3 at educational rates. I don't need any of the courses they offer, but total cost of course and software could be as low as £300 + vat.

Ironically, it is Adobe that loses out on this deal - I get the software I want, and am perfectly happy to pay a reasonable fee for (and I do believe £300+ is reasonable for the exceptional piece of software that PS is), the training company get a chunk of cash, and Adobe get less than they would have if they hadn't tried to rip me off in the first place.

Not all corporations are out to screw everyone, I'm as cynical if not more than the next guy but I think the comparisons are a little off base. Getting something for free is all well and good but I was raised myself to earn what you recieve and be thankful..for it.

People probably "balk" because they aren't really paying for the software, but rather the privilege (license) to use said software, which can be revoked at the discretion of the corporation or creator. So they are really paying a premium for a "revokeable privilege" which is essentially nothing... Since when do you buy something and not own it?
When one buys an article of clothing, they own the garment with no strings attached, except the tag attached to a collar, usually... Clothing does not require registration activation, or an accompanying EULA. One is also not told what one can or cannot do with the purchased article of clothing long after it is purchased...
Imagine if a pair of jeans came with an EULA that stated you shall not rip (physically tear with hands or sharp objects) because they violate the terms of agreement and you should discontinue use of the jeans...
Another characteristic that may cause the "balk" phenomenon among consumers is the clandestine tactics some software programs use to mine for an end users usage patterns and personal information and then report back to the software company, and by personal information i'm not referring to the stuff that's on your social security card, but hey i'm sure they can get access to that as well.
There's more but...