Re: Executing Encrypted Code
At 1:29 PM 12/20/1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 11:52 AM -0800 12/20/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
If it's worthwhile having a backup processor around, then you just have to spend a little more to have backup software, too.
I thought your model was cheap processors and expensive software. I.e.,. The cost of the software is greater than the cost of the hardware. Sounds like more than just "a little more".
There's no reason why one software package would cost more than the machine. I was assuming you didn't need your whole software library to finish the report. I would expect software prices to drop because everybody using the software would be paying for it. I would also expect more kinds of software to become available. At any rate, I just don't see this as a major problem. Does anybody know how often processors break down these days? My guess is that it is less common than getting into a car accident and much less common than all the other factors that make reports late. If companies started metering software, then this problem pretty much evaporates.
If the old copy protection just worked, it would have been widely accepted.
Again, there is a complex infrastructure which offers the customer no obvious benefit.
The obvious benefit is that when you purchase software you don't have to pay for software development for the people who don't pay. Few people find this objectionable in principle. It is not out of the question for software vendors to sell two versions of the same software. One is the piracy-free version and the other is the copy-as-much-as-you-can version. I would expect the piracy-free version to be substantially cheaper. (Of course, it is not out of the question that piracy boosts sales by advertising the product. We haven't seen a good experiment for determining this.)
I disagree that copy protection would have been widely accepted, even had it worked smoothly. In fact, this scheme can be characterized as a scheme to make copy protection work.
Your characterization is accurate. Ignoring the particulars of this scheme, it would certainly be neat if people could sell software without it being pirated. Peter Hendrickson ph@netcom.com
Peter Hendrickson writes:
I would expect software prices to drop because everybody using the software would be paying for it.
I don't mean to sound rude or insult you personally, but this is utterly absurd. If everyone is paying for the software then the company would be making even MORE money. Only a fool would want to make less money!! If money wasn't important to these people they wouldn't be in the business of selling software in the first place! Aside from putting a gun to people's heads, the only thing that lowers prices is competition.
It is not out of the question for software vendors to sell two versions of the same software. One is the piracy-free version and the other is the copy-as-much-as-you-can version. I would expect the piracy-free version to be substantially cheaper.
That would render the entire scheme pointless. It only takes _____ONE_____ copy of the software to get out for the whole world to pirate it. andrew
At 1:29 PM 12/20/1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 11:52 AM -0800 12/20/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
If it's worthwhile having a backup processor around, then you just have to spend a little more to have backup software, too.
I thought your model was cheap processors and expensive software. I.e.,. The cost of the software is greater than the cost of the hardware. Sounds like more than just "a little more".
There's no reason why one software package would cost more than the machine. I was assuming you didn't need your whole software library to finish the report.
I would expect software prices to drop because everybody using the software would be paying for it. I would also expect more kinds of software to become available.
I doubt it- if everyone has no choice but to pay, why would software companies lower prices? What would happen is a) less pirated software floating around, and b) software companies make much more money. I don't see prices coming down.
At any rate, I just don't see this as a major problem. Does anybody know how often processors break down these days? My guess is that it is less common than getting into a car accident and much less common than all the other factors that make reports late.
It doesn't have to break. Example: Advertising agency, each designer's machine has at least $10k worth of software on it. We upgrade the machine, we have to spend another $10k to buy new software, or go through administrative hassle with the vendor to get 'new' copies of the software? Speaking from a Sysadmin's perspective, I wouldn't use one if you gave me the hardware for free. With this scheme, the programmers benefit, the end-users don't, and it's the end-users who have to buy into this for it to work. [snip]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 aaron@herringn.com wrote:
At 1:29 PM 12/20/1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
... stuff deleted ...
I would expect software prices to drop because everybody using the software would be paying for it. I would also expect more kinds of software to become available.
I doubt it- if everyone has no choice but to pay, why would software companies lower prices? What would happen is a) less pirated software floating around, and b) software companies make much more money. I don't see prices coming down.
You should expect software companies to make more money and for prices to come down. Remember, there's not just one software company. This scheme would force some of the people who would copy software to buy it, increasing the profits to the software companies. So, why would the price come down? Well, because of the increased profit margin, there is now room for the price to come down, and since there is competition among software companies, at least one of them will lower prices for the advantage it will give them. The others will have to follow.
... rest deleted ...
- --------------------
Scott V. McGuire
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:28:49 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
I would expect software prices to drop because everybody using the software
would be paying for it. I would also expect more kinds of software to become
available.
What ever happened to charging what the market will bear? Why would
they voluntarily drop their prices just because the software can't be
pirated?
--
Paul Foley
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
(Of course, it is not out of the question that piracy boosts sales by advertising the product. We haven't seen a good experiment for determining this.)
There's this little game called "Doom" that was released for free a few years back. pay your $$$ and you got to continue the game. A couple hot shot programmers in Texas apparently made quite a bit of money off of this. Of course, the game was top-notch for its time
Your characterization is accurate. Ignoring the particulars of this scheme, it would certainly be neat if people could sell software without it being pirated.
They can. Models such as the one above and free software provide one alternative. Companies make their money on a value added basis and from corporations willing to pay proper license fees. Placing the kind of limitations you are envisioning upon hardware would be ultimately harmful to the growth of an industry which has always relied on innovation from "amateurs" on the outside of commercial circles. Furthermore, quality free applications and shareware applications represent a challenge to commercial firms to produce better software that customers are willing to pay for. me _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman mailto:omega@bigeasy.com PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________
participants (6)
-
aaron＠herringn.com -
Andrew Loewenstern -
Omegaman -
Paul Foley -
ph＠netcom.com -
Scott V. McGuire