TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Ask HN: Is shareware dead?

60 pointsby zippy786almost 10 years ago
Are there any HN users who make $$ from a shareware ? Any full timers doing this ?

24 comments

halvitialmost 10 years ago
Shareware is not dead, but I would say the term &#x27;shareware&#x27; is.<p>These days it&#x27;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.<p>Look at any app store and look at the free rankings. It&#x27;s practically full of nothing but &quot;lite&quot; versions that only exist to give you some features to help you decide whether you want to pay for the full version.<p>If anything &#x27;shareware&#x27; is more alive than ever although it goes by different names these days, &#x27;lite&#x27;, &#x27;freemium&#x27;, etc.
评论 #9838268 未加载
评论 #9839196 未加载
评论 #9838554 未加载
评论 #9837981 未加载
评论 #9838117 未加载
patio11almost 10 years ago
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, &quot;How can we differentiate &#x27;shareware&#x27; from the rest of the industry when <i>Microsoft Freaking Office</i> is sold on a free trial model these days?&quot; After the widespread rise of the web &quot;You can give the installer executable to other people. Please do!&quot; was no longer a really compelling advantage, and it <i>always</i> confused a lot of civilians. (&quot;You mean I don&#x27;t have to pay for it, right?&quot; &quot;No, that is <i>not</i> what shareware means.&quot; &quot;You greedy bastard!&quot;)<p>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.<p>At least one received a check written on purple paper with an exclamation point on it, as if the dollar amount wasn&#x27;t an exclamation enough. (He&#x27;s occasionally active on HN and can tell you the story if he wants to, but it isn&#x27;t mine to tell.)<p>[+] 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 &quot;crappy software which will give your Googles a virus but is otherwise free.&quot;
r3m6almost 10 years ago
The shareware concept is doing well, just the name has changed to &quot;30-day trial&quot; or &quot;Lite&quot; or &quot;Free&#x2F;Pro&quot; or....<p>As an example, Andy Brice blogs about his shareware business at <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;successfulsoftware.net&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;successfulsoftware.net&#x2F;</a>
banealmost 10 years ago
Shareware as a business model is alive and well. It&#x27;s likely that <i>most</i> 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&#x27;s basically the model in use for closed-source commercial consumer-level software.<p>In many ways, shareware has become the &quot;default&quot; method for distributing commercial software, and it&#x27;s non-shareware software that&#x27;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 &quot;30-till-30&quot; model by our sales guys who didn&#x27;t realize it was just shareware.<p>Looking at my own list of software I have installed right now:<p>Chrome - free with open source version<p>Firefox - open source + donationware<p>Thunderbird - open source + donationware<p>MS-Office - shareware<p>Foobar - open source + donationware<p>yed - free, but with commercial tools as part of the ecosystem, this makes it in my mind pseudo-shareware<p>Gimp - open source + donationware<p>Simcity 4 - fully commercial<p>Notepad++ - open source + donationware<p>Sublime Text 2 - shareware<p>FileZilla - open source + donationware<p>Mirc - shareware<p>Anki - similar model to yed, desktop version is free, mobile is paid<p>Bulk Rename Utility - donationware, closed source<p>Caustic - similar model to yed, desktop version if free, mobile is paid<p>Pycharm - shareware<p>renoise - shareware<p>bunch of steamgames - most started as a demo, so I&#x27;ll go with shareware<p>skipping over python, perl and the usual open source suspects<p>and on my phone: most started as a &quot;lite&quot; version so many of the apps are all shareware
andymitchellalmost 10 years ago
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.<p>Short answer: downloadable trial software is still viable... we&#x27;re doubling revenue each year and supporting a team of 6.<p><i>Donationware</i> (product is free for life, occasionally nagged for money). Lesson&#x27;s learned: 1) It&#x27;s no way to live, but a good way to start, as the userbase was at it&#x27;s most vocal with feedback back then, when we were trying to hit product&#x2F;market fit (perhaps because &#x27;donation ware&#x27; felt much more community-spirited). 2) I don&#x27;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&#x27;ve read studies since that if someone is asked to name their own price, they&#x27;ll be much more generous (the downside being not as many people will pay anything at all).<p>We then tried <i>freemium</i> (features were restricted until people paid). Lesson&#x27;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 &#x27;broken&#x27; product, and don&#x27;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&#x27;t, paid. I.e. the &#x27;free plan&#x27; was hardly used (related to the first point). Thus it was just a maintenance burden.<p>Now we have a two week <i>trial</i>, and then you pay. Lesson&#x27;s learnt: 1) Benchmarked against freemium, conversion increased 4% in real terms (and 20% in relative terms). Mostly because it nudged the small % of &#x27;free plan&#x27; folks from above into buying.<p>[1] www.activeinboxhq.com
xenophonfalmost 10 years ago
Lot&#x27;s of people make money from shareware, if you mean &quot;software with a free trial or evaluation period&quot;. In the age of halfway decent worldwide network connectivity and third-party download sites that bundle adware&#x2F;spyware, the idea of letting other people distribute one&#x27;s software for you is probably dead.<p>If it didn&#x27;t have all the historical baggage from the BBS days, I think that &quot;shareware&quot; would be the perfect replacement for FSF&#x27;s somewhat awkward &quot;libre software&quot; or the more ambiguous &quot;free software&quot;. 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 &quot;share&quot; really gets to the heart of what FSF&#x27;s &quot;software freedom&quot; is about, which is modification and re-distribution by end users.
czardozalmost 10 years ago
Could &quot;freemium software&quot; be considered to be the new &quot;shareware software&quot;? With both types, you get some features without paying, and you must pay for the full experience.
T-hawkalmost 10 years ago
Shareware conflated two different concepts that are now separated: the distribution model, and the pricing model.<p>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&#x27;s just outmoded now when anyone can toss up a website to host anything.<p>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.<p>So the &quot;share&quot; part of shareware has been superseded, but there are still elements of it in the modern software industry.
评论 #9840518 未加载
andersthuealmost 10 years ago
I agree that the term shareware is dead, but time limited or feature limited freeware with a paid full version is not dead.<p>I make a living from <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.watermark-image.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.watermark-image.com</a> and other sw for windows, I have et a lot of people at MicroConf who makes a living from sw.
kazinatoralmost 10 years ago
Nobody today can offer a proprietary, binary-only program as a &quot;trial demo&quot;, and call it &quot;sharing&quot; with a straight face.<p>Not when you can get an entire operating system loaded with packages that are all freely redistributable, open source.<p>It&#x27;s still done, just not called &quot;shareware&quot;.<p>Ah yes, now I remember; there used to be an etiquette behind using the term &quot;shareware&quot;. Some people believed that the term &quot;shareware&quot; 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&#x27;s still really not sharing; it&#x27;s just dumping a free product on the market. Without bending that that etiquette too much, you could call Internet Explorer shareware.
ctdonathalmost 10 years ago
Insofar as the term &quot;shareware&quot; can be construed as users actively giving away copies, with references to where paid expansion&#x2F;sequel software can be obtained, that&#x27;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&#x27;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.<p>Can&#x27;t say a definitive &quot;no&quot; to the lead questions, as the world is a big place and there are &quot;underground&quot; groups maintaining limited distribution. On the whole, I&#x27;d be surprised to find any.
huhtenbergalmost 10 years ago
There&#x27;s no &quot;shareware&quot; per se, but there&#x27;s plenty of &quot;indie trialware&quot; if you will and it&#x27;s doing really well.<p>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&#x27;ve seen plenty of single-man shareware shops without realizing it.
azifalialmost 10 years ago
Freemium is the new shareware
CRidgealmost 10 years ago
As a word it looks pretty dead: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;trends&#x2F;explore#q=shareware" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;trends&#x2F;explore#q=shareware</a>
评论 #9838369 未加载
评论 #9838365 未加载
ctdonathalmost 10 years ago
&quot;Shareware&quot; is an old term. Archaic labels don&#x27;t sell well.<p>Now it&#x27;s called &quot;in-app purchases&quot;: get the core app for free, get bonus&#x2F;improvement material for a fee.
vinceyuanalmost 10 years ago
Shareware becomes free apps with in-app purchases.
_pmf_almost 10 years ago
Shareware has been renamed to &quot;Apps&quot;.
pdpialmost 10 years ago
There&#x27;s at least one piece of modern software I use on a daily basis that should count as shareware: Sublime Text.
评论 #9838341 未加载
segmondyalmost 10 years ago
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.
trequartistaalmost 10 years ago
I&#x27;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.<p>There are plenty of apps which allow additional functionality or unlock more levels if you tweet or post about them.
scottmcdotalmost 10 years ago
When you dissect the word &quot;shareware&quot;, &quot;share&quot; has an entirely different meaning now.<p>What did &quot;share&quot; actually mean then?
评论 #9838286 未加载
评论 #9838281 未加载
评论 #9838282 未加载
评论 #9838273 未加载
jrochkind1almost 10 years ago
The word &quot;shareware&quot; really comes from a pre-internet era, where distribution of software was a challenge.<p>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&#x2F;freeware (&#x27;freeware&#x27; another word that&#x27;s sort of been eclipsed by the &#x27;open source&#x27; revolution), which people are still happy to pay $5 or $10 for, because it was hard to get software otherwise, people didn&#x27;t have access to an internet with all the software!<p>Shareware often had all software features unlocked immediately, but encouraged people to pay if they liked it and continued using it. Or maybe not &#x27;encouraged&#x27;, often &quot;required&quot; by terms of the license, but with no real enforcement mechanism, really just the honor system<p>Or occasionally locked some features until you had bought a license -- but that was rare in the pre-internet era, because there wasn&#x27;t a good cheap way to exchange money for license keys, that didn&#x27;t require building up an expensive infrastructure.<p>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 &quot;Please buy a license if you find this useful.&quot; 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&#x27;ll let you keep using it forever with the startup popup message, without paying. It&#x27;s essentially &quot;shareware&quot; as far as that goes -- but there&#x27;s no need for users to obtain a copy by their friends who already have a copy &#x27;sharing&#x27; one; everyone can just download a copy from the ST website themselves.<p>Some things that basically use this &#x27;business model&#x27; are actually open source -- you legally _can_ use the software for whatever you want without paying for it, but if you&#x27;d like to support the developers, send money. That&#x27;s sort of &quot;shareware&quot; too.<p>But now that it&#x27;s pretty easy&#x2F;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&#x27;t call it &quot;shareware&quot;, it doesn&#x27;t need a special name, because it&#x27;s such a common way to do it now, maybe even the predominant way to do it.<p>The term &#x27;shareware&#x27; 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&#x27;s no reason to buy a CD of a compilation of mostly crappy freeware&#x2F;shareware anymore, everyone can just browse the internet and download whatever they like.
MichaelCrawfordalmost 10 years ago
Among the problems is that &quot;the channel&quot; has squeezed out shareware.<p>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.
pjmlpalmost 10 years ago
Yes, open source killed it.