
Ask HN: Is shareware dead? - zippy786
Are there any HN users who make $$ from a shareware ? Any full timers doing this ?
======
halviti
Shareware is not dead, but I would say the term 'shareware' is.

These days it's just software. You have free software that gives you a limited
user experience or timed trial to decide if you want to buy the full thing.

Look at any app store and look at the free rankings. It's practically full of
nothing but "lite" versions that only exist to give you some features to help
you decide whether you want to pay for the full version.

If anything 'shareware' is more alive than ever although it goes by different
names these days, 'lite', 'freemium', etc.

~~~
eloisant
The idea behind the word "shareware" is that you "shared" the demo version
with your friends, and anyone who wants to buy a licence can.

So now that we get everything from a direct download, it makes sense that the
term "shareware" is no longer used. The concept of having the demo spreading
organically as people share it is gone.

~~~
z3t4
Right, thinking about it, it could still work with very popular things like TV
series. You release the whole season with bit-torrent to save bandwidth and
marketing costs. Then after watching the first two episodes you have to pay
for the rest. Sure there's no tech for that today, but hey startup idea!

~~~
heywire
Isn't this kind of what they're doing on Google Play, or what was done with
Mr. Robot, minus the torrent? The first episode or two are free, then you
either pay per episode or watch via TV subscription. I frequently download
free pilot episodes to see if there are any shows I might be interested in
watching. I would say that Mr. Robot was a great example of this. I heard
about the show by word of mouth (it might have been here, or possibly on
Reddit). I do not watch any other shows on USA, so it is likely that I would
have never heard of the show had I not had the pilot recommended to me and
easily available to watch on YouTube. I think that last part is key. I
probably would not have made the effort to download a "USA" app, or jump
through hoops to watch it on a web browser. Having it easily available on my
phone where I could watch it with the built in YouTube app was perfect.

~~~
z3t4
My idea is that you share the whole season with "friends" on torrent and other
file-sharing sites. Not only the free episodes. You download the entire
season! This takes care of both distribution and most of the marketing. You
of-course release it with the highest quality! And you do not need any
infrastructure whatsoever to do this.

As in the spirit of shareware, you let people watch some of the episodes for
free, then charge for the rest. And that's the part some smart people has to
figure out.

An idea is to have the content encoded differently depending on the Internet
routes. And some type of block-chain that would give you a key to decode the
data, depending on a voucher code you insert to the chain.

------
patio11
The word is pretty decisively dead [+]. Lots of companies make money by
selling software over the Internet on a free trial model. As was routinely
observed in the shareware community as we tired of the name, "How can we
differentiate 'shareware' from the rest of the industry when _Microsoft
Freaking Office_ is sold on a free trial model these days?" After the
widespread rise of the web "You can give the installer executable to other
people. Please do!" was no longer a really compelling advantage, and it
_always_ confused a lot of civilians. ("You mean I don't have to pay for it,
right?" "No, that is _not_ what shareware means." "You greedy bastard!")

I just sold my business which did this back in April -- it supported me above
my previous day job salary for a while back in the day, before the rest of my
business eclipsed it. I was, ahem, very much not the most successful HNer with
the model, but many of the others like to keep things under their hat.

At least one received a check written on purple paper with an exclamation
point on it, as if the dollar amount wasn't an exclamation enough. (He's
occasionally active on HN and can tell you the story if he wants to, but it
isn't mine to tell.)

[+] I used to be a card-carrying member of the Association of Shareware
Professionals, which is now the Association of Software Professionals, because
the membership expressed its opinion that the shareware branding communicated
"crappy software which will give your Googles a virus but is otherwise free."

------
r3m6
The shareware concept is doing well, just the name has changed to "30-day
trial" or "Lite" or "Free/Pro" or....

As an example, Andy Brice blogs about his shareware business at
[http://successfulsoftware.net/](http://successfulsoftware.net/)

------
bane
Shareware as a business model is alive and well. It's likely that _most_
commercial software a user uses these days started as a demo they were
testing, maybe with a few features missing, or nag screens or a timer -- then
they upgraded it to a full licensed copy. For whatever reason, we stopped
calling it shareware, but that's basically the model in use for closed-source
commercial consumer-level software.

In many ways, shareware has become the "default" method for distributing
commercial software, and it's non-shareware software that's kind of weird.
This even happens on the high end. I worked for a desktop software company
years ago, and we gave away our software on a 30-day trial, if they liked it,
a seat cost $30k. It was called the "30-till-30" model by our sales guys who
didn't realize it was just shareware.

Looking at my own list of software I have installed right now:

Chrome - free with open source version

Firefox - open source + donationware

Thunderbird - open source + donationware

MS-Office - shareware

Foobar - open source + donationware

yed - free, but with commercial tools as part of the ecosystem, this makes it
in my mind pseudo-shareware

Gimp - open source + donationware

Simcity 4 - fully commercial

Notepad++ - open source + donationware

Sublime Text 2 - shareware

FileZilla - open source + donationware

Mirc - shareware

Anki - similar model to yed, desktop version is free, mobile is paid

Bulk Rename Utility - donationware, closed source

Caustic - similar model to yed, desktop version if free, mobile is paid

Pycharm - shareware

renoise - shareware

bunch of steamgames - most started as a demo, so I'll go with shareware

skipping over python, perl and the usual open source suspects

and on my phone: most started as a "lite" version so many of the apps are all
shareware

------
andymitchell
We make an downloadable product [1] that over its lifetime has been sold as
donationware, freemium and trial-based -- three of the main variants that
shareware evolved into.

Short answer: downloadable trial software is still viable... we're doubling
revenue each year and supporting a team of 6.

 _Donationware_ (product is free for life, occasionally nagged for money).
Lesson's learned: 1) It's no way to live, but a good way to start, as the
userbase was at it's most vocal with feedback back then, when we were trying
to hit product/market fit (perhaps because 'donation ware' felt much more
community-spirited). 2) I don't have exact conversion numbers, but I do
remember being surprised by how much an individual donated ($1 was the
minimum, $30 the average, $300 the max). I've read studies since that if
someone is asked to name their own price, they'll be much more generous (the
downside being not as many people will pay anything at all).

We then tried _freemium_ (features were restricted until people paid).
Lesson's learnt: 1) Do freemium by resource constraints, not feature
constraints (i.e. all features are available, but when you use X amount of
data you have to pay). Because otherwise users just see a 'broken' product,
and don't see the point in paying for something less-useful. 2) We also
noticed that most people quit in the first two weeks, and almost everyone who
didn't, paid. I.e. the 'free plan' was hardly used (related to the first
point). Thus it was just a maintenance burden.

Now we have a two week _trial_ , and then you pay. Lesson's learnt: 1)
Benchmarked against freemium, conversion increased 4% in real terms (and 20%
in relative terms). Mostly because it nudged the small % of 'free plan' folks
from above into buying.

[1] www.activeinboxhq.com

------
xenophonf
Lot's of people make money from shareware, if you mean "software with a free
trial or evaluation period". In the age of halfway decent worldwide network
connectivity and third-party download sites that bundle adware/spyware, the
idea of letting other people distribute one's software for you is probably
dead.

If it didn't have all the historical baggage from the BBS days, I think that
"shareware" would be the perfect replacement for FSF's somewhat awkward "libre
software" or the more ambiguous "free software". Heck, most people already
treat free trials as something they can download, install, run forever, give
to their buddies, distribute over the corporate LAN, etc.---WinZIP being the
canonical example. The word "share" really gets to the heart of what FSF's
"software freedom" is about, which is modification and re-distribution by end
users.

------
czardoz
Could "freemium software" be considered to be the new "shareware software"?
With both types, you get some features without paying, and you must pay for
the full experience.

------
T-hawk
Shareware conflated two different concepts that are now separated: the
distribution model, and the pricing model.

The distribution model was the genius of shareware at the time. In the days
before the Internet and websites, physical distribution of the bits was a
significant challenge. Shareware got the users doing the distribution work for
the creator. Take this free version and copy and share it as much as you like.
This succeeded very well, of course. But it's just outmoded now when anyone
can toss up a website to host anything.

The pricing model is alive and well, we now call it freemium. Offering a
limited free version, with a paid upgrade for full features, has been
successful all along and transitioned fine from the days of shareware to
Internet-hosted distribution. Or the product was full-featured all along and
just asked you to register on the honor system. That still exists too and we
now call it donationware.

So the "share" part of shareware has been superseded, but there are still
elements of it in the modern software industry.

~~~
ben1040
>The distribution model was the genius of shareware at the time. In the days
before the Internet and websites, physical distribution of the bits was a
significant challenge. Shareware got the users doing the distribution work for
the creator. Take this free version and copy and share it as much as you like.

That concept seemed to make better sense if you had people who were just
handing disks around to friends. At that point the _share_ part was clearer.

What was always really annoying though was back in the late 80s/early 90s
there were companies that basically existed just to duplicate floppies with
shareware on them and sell them in stores.

I remember going to a computer store and seeing a couple racks of floppies
with games or home software for $10 or so. If you weren't familiar with the
shareware concept you'd assume you got a great deal -- only to take it home
and discover you paid money for a disk with a single piece of shareware on it,
not a full license to the software.

At least later on when companies started selling CD-ROM compilations with
600MB worth of shareware, it was more clear you were buying something to save
you the trouble of downloading all that from a BBS, not buying a single piece
of software.

------
andersthue
I agree that the term shareware is dead, but time limited or feature limited
freeware with a paid full version is not dead.

I make a living from [http://www.watermark-image.com](http://www.watermark-
image.com) and other sw for windows, I have et a lot of people at MicroConf
who makes a living from sw.

------
kazinator
Nobody today can offer a proprietary, binary-only program as a "trial demo",
and call it "sharing" with a straight face.

Not when you can get an entire operating system loaded with packages that are
all freely redistributable, open source.

It's still done, just not called "shareware".

Ah yes, now I remember; there used to be an etiquette behind using the term
"shareware". Some people believed that the term "shareware" should only be
applied to non-expiring, freely redistributable programs. Only thing is, those
programs came only in binary form. Some forbade reverse engineering (like
unlocking some increased functionality). It's still really not sharing; it's
just dumping a free product on the market. Without bending that that etiquette
too much, you could call Internet Explorer shareware.

------
ctdonath
Insofar as the term "shareware" can be construed as users actively giving away
copies, with references to where paid expansion/sequel software can be
obtained, that's pretty much over with as the Internet has made distribution
trivial (just provide a link, no need to give someone the whole thing) - to
the point that one assumes that unless otherwise inaccessible (say, JFK
Reloaded isn't available from the publisher any more), better to go download
the latest directly from the source rather than a months-old version passed
around.

Can't say a definitive "no" to the lead questions, as the world is a big place
and there are "underground" groups maintaining limited distribution. On the
whole, I'd be surprised to find any.

------
huhtenberg
There's no "shareware" per se, but there's plenty of "indie trialware" if you
will and it's doing really well.

I have long-time friends who live very comfortably from a small herd of
shareware products. I also know others who decided to grow at some point and
now operate moderately-sized software shops that too are doing well. All of
these are on Windows, and nearly all of them are desktop software. One thing
to keep in mind that smaller companies tend to put up a larger corporate
facades, so the chances are that you've seen plenty of single-man shareware
shops without realizing it.

------
azifali
Freemium is the new shareware

------
CRidge
As a word it looks pretty dead:
[https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shareware](https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shareware)

~~~
tfinniga
The n-gram viewer goes back further, but only comes up to 2008. It looks like
the usage started in the mid 80s, peaked around 95, and was almost dead in
2008.

[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=shareware&year...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=shareware&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0)

------
ctdonath
"Shareware" is an old term. Archaic labels don't sell well.

Now it's called "in-app purchases": get the core app for free, get
bonus/improvement material for a fee.

------
vinceyuan
Shareware becomes free apps with in-app purchases.

------
_pmf_
Shareware has been renamed to "Apps".

------
pdpi
There's at least one piece of modern software I use on a daily basis that
should count as shareware: Sublime Text.

~~~
HappyTypist
Sure, but does it describe itself as shareware? The original benefit of
shareware was that you could redistribute the installer to your friends. This
is no longer a compelling benefit, and 'shareware' has serious negative
implications nowadays. The term is dead.

------
segmondy
Yes, Shareware is dead. The entire idea with shareware was that you could
share the software with others. The distribution channel was sharing. But the
shared software was limited, and those who like what they received could call
and upgrade.

------
trequartista
I'd say shareware still exists, except now such apps ask you to tweet about
the app or post on Facebook or pin it on Pinterest.

There are plenty of apps which allow additional functionality or unlock more
levels if you tweet or post about them.

------
scottmcdot
When you dissect the word "shareware", "share" has an entirely different
meaning now.

What did "share" actually mean then?

~~~
cm2187
It probably related to the practice of sharing useful tools on CDs. Before the
internet the highlight of my month was the CD ROM that came with computer
magazines and was loaded with sharewares and freewares.

~~~
pigeons
Floppies not CDs

------
jrochkind1
The word "shareware" really comes from a pre-internet era, where distribution
of software was a challenge.

So the idea is to let your users do the distribution for you, please, you are
free to share this software with your friends by letting them have a copy. Or
by putting it on a dialup BBS download area. Or by including it on a CD you
try to sell people of thousands of mostly crappy shareware/freeware
('freeware' another word that's sort of been eclipsed by the 'open source'
revolution), which people are still happy to pay $5 or $10 for, because it was
hard to get software otherwise, people didn't have access to an internet with
all the software!

Shareware often had all software features unlocked immediately, but encouraged
people to pay if they liked it and continued using it. Or maybe not
'encouraged', often "required" by terms of the license, but with no real
enforcement mechanism, really just the honor system

Or occasionally locked some features until you had bought a license -- but
that was rare in the pre-internet era, because there wasn't a good cheap way
to exchange money for license keys, that didn't require building up an
expensive infrastructure.

All of these business models are still in use. For instance, you can download
SublimeText for free, and use it as long as you want -- buying a SublimeText
license does nothing but disable the popup message on startup that says
"Please buy a license if you find this useful." I forget the language it uses,
how strongly it tries to tell you that you _must_ buy a license to continue
using it, but either way it'll let you keep using it forever with the startup
popup message, without paying. It's essentially "shareware" as far as that
goes -- but there's no need for users to obtain a copy by their friends who
already have a copy 'sharing' one; everyone can just download a copy from the
ST website themselves.

Some things that basically use this 'business model' are actually open source
-- you legally _can_ use the software for whatever you want without paying for
it, but if you'd like to support the developers, send money. That's sort of
"shareware" too.

But now that it's pretty easy/cheap to set up your own website for people to
download software, and sell license keys over the website, and have the
software be feature or time-crippled without the license key -- people who
really want to require the users to pay in order to keep using the software
are more likely to do that. And we don't call it "shareware", it doesn't need
a special name, because it's such a common way to do it now, maybe even the
predominant way to do it.

The term 'shareware' is from a pre-internet era, and from an era before open
source caught on too (and open source catching on came along with the internet
era too). And there's no reason to buy a CD of a compilation of mostly crappy
freeware/shareware anymore, everyone can just browse the internet and download
whatever they like.

------
MichaelCrawford
Among the problems is that "the channel" has squeezed out shareware.

The channel is the path from developer to end-user. At one time, one had to
purchase hookers and blow for the distributors. In some respects the app
stores are helpful but I regard them as eliminating our ability to determine
our own destinies.

------
pjmlp
Yes, open source killed it.

