Black Box 4/BlackBox.cdr/textinfo/guide.arj/LETTERS@.COM/YOUNG.LET

Text File | 1985-01-15 | 9.1 KB | 183 lines

                                                  January 15, 1985


  Mr. Nelson Ford
  The Public Library
  PO Box 61565
  Houston, TX  77208

  Dear Mr. Ford,

  Thanks for the diskette of information you recently sent.  Let me express
  interest in remaining on your mailing list.

  As the author of a "user-supported" program called The Designer, I have
  several reactions to your material, mostly favorable.  The following are my
  thoughts.

  1) I selected the user-supported method of distributing my software for
     three fundamental reasons:

     a) I have a good full-time job with a software company which I am not
        about to risk.  If I were to actively market software, there would be
        a strong potential of conflict- of-interest.  But, I can write
        software on my own and give it away, requesting donations at the same
        time, with no conflict-of-interest.

     b) When software (or any product) is given away, risks and liabilities
        are much less than when it is sold.  My manual disclaims all
        warranties and liabilities.  If I understand correctly, since the
        software is available free, and since many people have copies which
        have not been paid for, the disclaimer is on pretty solid legal
        ground.  My risk is near zero.

     c) And, of course, out-of-pocket costs and financial risk is reduced to
        nearly nothing with user-supported distribution.

  2) I am satisfied (if not overjoyed) with the results to date. At least I am
     satisfied enough to be in the process of writing a second offering.

     a) I wrote the software as much for fun as for profit.  I'm susceptible
        to the old "thrill of victory" when a tough routine works right and
        defies all attempts to crash it.

     b) Although I don't have accurate records of the amount of time I spent
        on the software, I think I have so far earned about $2 an hour - not
        much, but better than nothing.

     c) I have risked little other than my time.

  3) The comments about support on your diskette were particularly
     interesting.  I've received a few surprises in the support area and the
     following observations may interest you.  (In The Designer's
     documentation I offer support - by mail only - to one and all regardless
     of whether or not they have contributed.  This is in keeping with the
     free distribution concept.)

     a) I have never recieved notice of a true bug in the software (knock on
        wood).  Every problem I have handled has been caused either by gross
        lack of understanding of how to run a PC on the part of the user, or
        by utter failure to read my manual.  Either this means that I wrote
        solid code, or it means that no one is using it (the former, I hope).

     b) I have never received a request for support from a contributor.  All
        requests for support have come from non-contributors, most of them in
        the process of implementing the software.  I'm disappointed to find
        that people are willing to write and ask for help, and then ignore my
        request for contribution.

     c) I have received several requests for help with non-PC hardware which,
        of course, I don't own and don't have manuals for.  I do what I can,
        but it isn't much.

  4) Here are a few other experiences that may be worth sharing.

     a) I have received letters and requests from a number of organizations
        (people) who want to get their hands in my pocket.  Most involved
        marketing/distribution schemes.  My policy has been to nail my wallet
        shut and pay nothing to nobody.  This probably (but not necessarily)
        includes your suggested Marketing CO-OP.

     b) I have received several requests for permission to distribute my
        software.  So long as the terms of the request have met my established
        distribution policies, I have signed the papers and returned them on
        the theory that additional distribution channels might mean additional
        contributions.  In retrospect, I now doubt that I have gotten a single
        contribution from these channels, but can't prove it.

     c) I have noticed that the education market is one of the best.  About
        a third of my contributions to date have come from colleges and
        universities - or from people connected with them.  Budget limits and
        available time to investigate software may have something to do with
        it.

  5) Here are some of my current feelings about user-supported software.

     a) User-supported distribution is hopeless for the business market.  When
        company money is involved, there is no difference between a $500
        expenditure and a $25 expenditure.  Both require requisitions,
        purchase orders, approvals, and lots of hassle for the user.  Very,
        very few business users are likely to bother.

        Suppose I, as a businessperson, obtain a piece of user-supported
        software.  I go to my boss to ask for $40 for a contribution.  He
        says, "Why?"  I say, "Because the documentation asks for it and I
        think the author deserves it".  He says, "You mean we aren't required
        to pay?".  I say, "No, but it would be nice."  He says, "Next item of
        business."

     b) The education market is better.  Maybe professors are more
        understanding? The home/private-user market is also acceptably good.

     c) Therefore, user-supported authors need to find ways to direct their
        software more into the education and home markets.  Applications
        should be directed toward these markets.  Advertising should be aimed
        toward them.

     d) By now, we should recognize that writing User-supported software is
        not the road to wealth.  The good old days when PC-File and PC-Talk
        moved because it had little or no competition are gone. (I'm not
        casting disparagement on those two fine programs.  But the fact
        remains that when introduced, they had much less competition than we
        do now.)  Today, the shareware author who hopes to make more than a
        nominal sum from his efforts should have his or her head examined.

     e) Speaking for myself, the ideas of copy-protection, software crippling,
        documentation short-sheeting, and the like seem more self-defeating
        than productive.  I keep thinking about the book publishing business.
        How many libraries do you know that handle books which contain only
        the first chapter - you have to send money to the author to get the
        rest of the book?  The fact of the matter is that many people won't
        pay if they don't have to.  More important is finding ways to let the
        public know about user-supported software and finding ways to get
        copies into their hands for appraisal.

  6) An association of user-supported software authors would be valuable, and
     I would be happy to take part.  But, I am extremely tightfisted (out of
     necessity).  Any out-of-pocket costs must be low and the organization's
     legitimacy must be proven.  Subject to that concern, I think the sharing
     of ideas and experiences would be most valuable.

     Possibly what you are aiming at with your "SIG" and "CO-OP" terminology
     is really a trade associateion of sorts.  (Could we call it the Shareware
     Author's Professional Society - SAPS for short??)

     Possibly such an association could also help authors address the
     compatability issue.  A collection of experiences by authors trying to
     run PC-written software on brand X hardware could be very useful to those
     of us who don't have the money to buy one of every machine on the market.

  7) My new software will probably be ready for distribution this spring.  I
     currently plan to release it through a single mass mailing to every user
     group I can find.  I will send letters of announcement to most, diskettes
     to a selected few of the bigger ones.  Then I'll stop.  If it takes a
     year for it to get around the country - so be it.

  8) Your comments about documentation were interesting.  I have modeled by
     documentation after the standard published in IBM's Software Submission
     Guidelines. Those guidelines differ somewhat from your comments.
     Overall, I think they are extremely well done - as is the material you
     wrote.  I believe these guidelines are still available free by writing
     to:

         IBM Corp.
         PO Box 1328-S
         Boca Raton, FL 33432

     and asking for a copy of the Personal Computer Submission Plan.  It is
     interesting, incidentally, to see what IBM asks of those who are willing
     to submit their software for possible purchase/marketing by IBM.

  I hope at least some portion of this long, rambling document is of some use
  to you.  I'll be looking forward to GUIDE2.





                                Sincerely,



                               Jan B. Young