Top Ten Tips for spotting "temporary Freeware"

[SeaMaiden]

Err I'm confused by this one ..... would people prefer we *not* ask what
they would like to see added? (if thats the case then #18 may aswell be
"Has
a feedback/suggestions/bug report menu option to allow sending the author
feedback on the program")

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

I mentioned that for the case where the author is actively soliciting
comments to create a "favored" program that's no longer free. It goes with
#6 - Favored freeware that does one thing very well and then quickly evolves
WAY beyond the scope of its original design. That was the intent here. Sorry
for any confusion.

 

[Chris Lee]

ISTM that after you've looked at a lot of web sites you realize some
things are pretty good indicators that an app won't stay free for
long.

What are the *best* ways to spot "temporary Freeware" apps?

1. If it's Windows/Mac Software and it's hyped through a "review"
on sites like ZDNet or Betanews.com

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 08 Feb 2006, Susan Bugher wrote

SeaMaiden wrote:
-snip-

I have to disagree with this one - lots of "long term"
freeware is only free for personal use.

Glad you picked up that one. I agree: IMO that's not been an
indicator of a likely change to share/payware.

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

Good term, we should perhaps use that as a new term to
describe some fringe 'freeware' programs.

[/QUOTE]

I've been struggling with a way to say that in as few words as
possible. . . one example of what I've started putting in
ware descriptions:

Ware: (Donationware) (Registerware: time limited/renewable)
(free)
Has anybody got a better suggestion?

Can't help with a description, but FWIW I now steer clear of the
expiring/renewable stuff.

I can see the rationale of the developer not wanting a bunch of
older versions kicking around, but I find it annoying to come to
rely on something that stops you using an older version, but
demands additional resources, etc. to run the new one.

(A recent case was with the Brava pdf reader: the old version
expired and was shut down, but the new free version only operates
on XP. I can imagine other apps that start demanding that you
install the NET framework, or run ActiveX, or something.)

The mileage of others may vary, but that's why I wouldn't
personally recommend "expire-and-renew" freeware.

 

[Dewey Edwards]

Good term, we should perhaps use that as a new term to describe some
fringe 'freeware' programs.

In June,M$ will want $49.95 per year for their suite of protection
tools, including the current antispyware beta.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/...neCare-Live/story.xhtml?story_id=0200028E0GGO

 

[Susan Bugher]

1. If it's Windows/Mac Software and it's hyped through a "review"
on sites like ZDNet or Betanews.com

Gotta agree with that. And conversely - if an app isn't listed on any
major software sites that's a pretty good indication the author is not
using it as a "loss leader".

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

On 08 Feb 2006, Susan Bugher wrote

Can't help with a description, but FWIW I now steer clear of the
expiring/renewable stuff.

I can see the rationale of the developer not wanting a bunch of
older versions kicking around, but I find it annoying to come to
rely on something that stops you using an older version, but
demands additional resources, etc. to run the new one.

(A recent case was with the Brava pdf reader: the old version
expired and was shut down, but the new free version only operates
on XP. I can imagine other apps that start demanding that you
install the NET framework, or run ActiveX, or something.)

The mileage of others may vary, but that's why I wouldn't
personally recommend "expire-and-renew" freeware.

IMO there's one type of app that's a "special case". Apps that by their
nature *need* frequent updating/renewing (anti-spyware etc.) will be
worthless anyway if the author stops supporting/updating them. ISTM the
distinction between permanent and "expire-and-renew" is not particulary
meaningful for those apps.

Thanks for the heads-up about Brava.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[EDEB]

Especially at numerous commercial looking mirrors...


;O)

EDEB.

 

[canetoad]

ISTM that after you've looked at a lot of web sites you realize some
things are pretty good indicators that an app won't stay free for long.

What are the *best* ways to spot "temporary Freeware" apps?

1. They use a pretend picture of gaudy boxed software on website.

 

[EDEB]

The company also sells boxed software, in real or digital boxes.

EDEB.

 

[Susan Bugher]

The company also sells boxed software, in real or digital boxes.

I dunno. Take a look at the box shots on these NCH Swift Sound web pages:

http://nch.com.au/switch/ (Liteware)
http://nch.com.au/switch/plus.html (Shareware)

http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/ (liteware)
http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/masters.html (Shareware)

They might pull all their Liteware apps tomorrow but IMO that doesn't
seem very likely.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 09 Feb 2006, Susan Bugher wrote

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

re: expiry/renewal

-snip-

IMO there's one type of app that's a "special case". Apps that
by their nature *need* frequent updating/renewing
(anti-spyware etc.) will be worthless anyway if the author
stops supporting/updating them. ISTM the distinction between
permanent and "expire-and-renew" is not particulary meaningful
for those apps.

I see your point; that wouldn't bother me, but as you say it's a
special-case thing.

Thanks for the heads-up about Brava.

It was annoying. I've switched to Foxit, though, and will stick
with them.

(Corporately, of course, that's the danger with the "expiry" model.
When I *do* (inevitably) change to XP -- and especially if I want
to purchase a "pro" version or a corporate-type pdf maker, which
I'm pulling towards -- I'll stick with the companies I'm using
rather than go back to one that pulled the rug out on me.)

 

[EDEB]

What are the *best* ways to spot "temporary Freeware" apps?

I dunno. Take a look at the box shots on these NCH Swift Sound web pages:

http://nch.com.au/switch/ (Liteware)
http://nch.com.au/switch/plus.html (Shareware)

http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/ (liteware)
http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/masters.html (Shareware)

They might pull all their Liteware apps tomorrow but IMO that doesn't
seem very likely.

Fair enough. I'm sure you'll be able to find lots of exceptions, but I've noticed that revocation of freeware status *sometimes*
follows, just on the basis that it's a commercial operation, and they want to make money...

EDEB.

 

[Susan Bugher]

On 09 Feb 2006, Susan Bugher wrote

I see your point; that wouldn't bother me, but as you say it's a
special-case thing.


It was annoying. I've switched to Foxit, though, and will stick
with them.

(Corporately, of course, that's the danger with the "expiry" model.
When I *do* (inevitably) change to XP -- and especially if I want
to purchase a "pro" version or a corporate-type pdf maker, which
I'm pulling towards -- I'll stick with the companies I'm using
rather than go back to one that pulled the rug out on me.)

Yup - if the idea is to draw in future customers they're shooting
themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned. IMO the expire/renew
model is *usually* an indication that they INTEND to pull the rug out
from under me. My reaction -> thanks but no thanks, I'm not interested
in Trialware and I don't trust people/companies that play games.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

Fair enough. I'm sure you'll be able to find lots of exceptions, but I've noticed that revocation of freeware status *sometimes*
follows, just on the basis that it's a commercial operation, and they want to make money...

Yup - the way commercial authors present their Freeware programs does
offer some pretty good clues as to their intentions. I'm not convinced
that the presence of a box shot "in and of itself" is a good clue - ISTM
there are other clues that are better indicators. There are some pretty
good counter-indicators too - a separate section for Freeware apps is
one. . .

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

I'm going to attempt a reorganization/summary. Meanwhile, the
suggestions/comments that have been posted to date are below.

What are the *best* ways to spot "temporary Freeware" apps?

==========

1. Buy now?

2. Registration Screen on 'Start-Up'.

3. No 'Help' files.

4. It's a beta version, and all other apps on the site are shareware.

5. The Paypal banner takes up half the header on the page.

6. Favored freeware that does one thing very well and then quickly
evolves WAY beyond the scope of its original design.

7. It's a professional looking site. There's only one app on the web
site. let's call it app "XYZ". The author is "XYZ Software". The web
site is www.XYZ.com

8. It's a professional looking site but there's no information about the
company/author(s).

9. The splash screen says "You have 30 free days remaining before you
need to upgrade the software".

Isn't that Trialware?
you need to upgrade the software" or "this version expires on mm/dd/yy".
(RegCool and Microsoft Antispyware are both freeware, but their versions
expire after a time, so you have to download new ones. They are not
shareware or trialware, just freeware that expires, or expireware.)

*NOT* Freeware to begin with: "Freeware: Legally obtainable software
that you may use at no cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you
wish."

10. Free to download

Especially at numerous commercial looking mirrors...

especially if using that phrase means they won't have to change the web
page when the app goes Shareware.

9. The app is keyed registerware => total control of distribution => no
*usable* last freeware versions can be downloaded once the switch is
made. . .

11. The web site says "This version is free for a limited time". It may
be expireware, or if no expiration is built-into the program, the author
may only be making it available as freeware for, say, 1 month. Then he
will start charging for it, and you won't be able to download it again
unless you buy the program or pay for a premium membership.

"This version is free for a limited time" is rather MORE than an
indicator - temporary for sure - no need for us to guess if the author
spells it out. (ISTM statements like that are almost always included in
ACF posts.)

12. Free to download.

13. Free to try.

14. Free for personal or noncommercial use.

I have to disagree with this one - lots of "long term" freeware is only
free for personal use.

Glad you picked up that one. I agree: IMO that's not been an
indicator of a likely change to share/payware.

15. Addons, Upgrades, and/or Technical Support are only available to
registered users.

16. Each new free version has fewer and fewer features, and one day they
decide to do away with the free version completely (Everest Home Edition).

17. The web site clearly states "What new features would you like to see
in the next version of XYZ program?", and there is a link underneath to
a web page or email address where you can submit your comments.

If anything, I'd say 17 is a contra-indicator. Apps with no version
info, no feedback mechanism, nothing but a page with a blurb and a
download button - IMO those are more likely to be the apps that change
quickly to Shareware.
for example:
http://www.scosoft.com/
Another example of a site that where I think the free apps will go $ware
in the not too distant future:
http://www.ice-graphics.com/

I mentioned that for the case where the author is actively soliciting
comments to create a "favored" program that's no longer free. It goes
with #6 - Favored freeware that does one thing very well and then
quickly evolves WAY beyond the scope of its original design. That was
the intent here. Sorry for any confusion.

18. Nag screens that pop up from time to time to tell you that there are
more features in the registered, pro, or deluxe version and ask if you'd
like to upgrade.

19. Nag screens that pop up when you click on an option that is not
available in the free version (X-Cleaner Free, xplorer2 Lite) and ask if
you'd like to upgrade to the registered, pro or deluxe version.

1. If it's Windows/Mac Software and it's hyped through a "review"
on sites like ZDNet or Betanews.com

And conversely - if an app isn't listed on any major software sites
that's a pretty good indication the author is not using it as a "loss
leader".

1. They use a pretend picture of gaudy boxed software on website.

The company also sells boxed software, in real or digital boxes.

I dunno. Take a look at the box shots on these NCH Swift Sound web pages:

http://nch.com.au/switch/ (Liteware)
http://nch.com.au/switch/plus.html (Shareware)

http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/ (liteware)
http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/masters.html (Shareware)

They might pull all their Liteware apps tomorrow but IMO that doesn't
seem very likely.

Fair enough. I'm sure you'll be able to find lots of exceptions, but
I've noticed that revocation of freeware status *sometimes*
follows, just on the basis that it's a commercial operation, and they
want to make money...

Yup - the way commercial authors present their Freeware programs does
offer some pretty good clues as to their intentions. I'm not convinced
that the presence of a box shot "in and of itself" is a good clue - ISTM
there are other clues that are better indicators. There are some pretty
good counter-indicators too - a separate section for Freeware apps is
one. . .

===========

 

[Susan Bugher]

I'm going to attempt a reorganization/summary.

Okay, here's a summary of what I think are the *best* pointers to
temporary Freeware. Please review and comment. (ISTM the final version
would make a nice addition to the ACF wiki.)

Susan

--------------

Authors write Freeware programs for a number of reasons. Some want the
apps to contribute to their bottom line - either as "loss leaders" or by
their eventual transformation into Shareware apps. Nothing in the world
wrong with that.

but. . .

ACF participant's interest is in finding good free programs. It's
discouraging to discover that an app you'd like to try (now that you
have a need for it) has become Shareware. If you'd known that was
likely to happen you might have downloaded it while it was still free -
or perhaps you did download the app and like it. When you look for an
update you discover it's now Shareware and you don't have the *last*
freeware version.

What are some good ways to spot apps that the author intends to offer
only *temporarily* as Freeware? What are the signs that tell us to get
it *NOW* if it looks interesting? Read on. . .

------------

Google is your friend. Danger signs to look for:

It's hyped through a "review" on sites like ZDNet or Betanews.com

It's found at numerous commercial looking mirrors.

There's a pattern. The company's Shareware apps were offered first as
Freeware (Google, the Wayback Machine and/or the ACF program information
pages may give you that information).

----------

Visit the web site. Danger signs to look for:

The Paypal banner takes up half the header on the page.

The Freeware is a beta version - other apps on the site are shareware.

It's a professional looking site - there's only one app and not much
information.

It's a professional looking site and there's no information about the
company/author(s).

It's a professional looking site and there's little or no indication
that the app is Freeware (it's labeled "Free to download" or "free to
try" or simply not labeled)

------------

Download and install the app. Danger signs to look for:

The author completely controls the download (all download links are
redirected to the author's site).

The app is keyed registerware (total control of distribution => no
*usable* last freeware versions can be downloaded once the switch is made).

----------

 

[EDEB]

Yup - the way commercial authors present their Freeware programs does
offer some pretty good clues as to their intentions. I'm not convinced
that the presence of a box shot "in and of itself" is a good clue - ISTM
there are other clues that are better indicators. There are some pretty
good counter-indicators too - a separate section for Freeware apps is
one. . .

Susan
--

Fairynuff.

EDEB.

 

[Sietse Fliege]

Gotta agree with that.

Not to challenge this, but this a a good moment to point to ZDNet's
George Ou's nice review of µTorrent http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=153

Turns out that a program can be hyped simultaneously by both you, Susan
and by ZDNet's George Ou.

And conversely - if an app isn't listed on any major software sites
that's a pretty good indication the author is not using it as a
"loss leader".

There's major software sites and major freeware sites.
I guess that if an app is listed on major *freeware sites only* that is
a pretty good indication that it's gonna stay freeware.
I really don't know if there is many freeware that is to be found on
major freeware sites only, though.
Of the major software sites I only frequently visit Softpedia, but then
I use the bookmark http://win.softpedia.com/index1.free.shtml which
shows me only freeware.
I get the impression that it does not miss much of what can be found on
e.g. http://www.freewarefiles.com/search.php?option=mostrecent

On a side note: John Corliss frequently advises to only visit major
freeware sites, particularly ones that try out every program to check
out if it does not contain nasties and is really freeware.
While that is good advice from a security point of view, I am glad that
many acf participants also check out programs that are not listed on any
major software/freeware site. There has been found many a jewel from
authors that do not submit their freeware to any major site.
And they certainly tend to stay freeware

 

[Susan Bugher]

Not to challenge this, but this a a good moment to point to ZDNet's
George Ou's nice review of µTorrent http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=153

*Very* nice review.

Turns out that a program can be hyped simultaneously by both you, Susan
and by ZDNet's George Ou.

I looked at µTorrent because ACF participants told me it was a good app.
*They* nominated and selected it for PL2006. I'm no expert - *most*
especially when it comes to bit torrents - but having tried it I'm
certainly a fan and I do hype it. The nomination surprised me because I
couldn't remember a previous mention of the app. Now I know why - it was
brand new.

Credit goes to Soren for spotting this gem almost instantly - check the
date of his post:

Subject: Re: [PL] PL2006 Program Submittals - uTorrent

There's major software sites and major freeware sites.
I guess that if an app is listed on major *freeware sites only* that is
a pretty good indication that it's gonna stay freeware.
I really don't know if there is many freeware that is to be found on
major freeware sites only, though.
Of the major software sites I only frequently visit Softpedia, but then
I use the bookmark http://win.softpedia.com/index1.free.shtml which
shows me only freeware.
I get the impression that it does not miss much of what can be found on
e.g. http://www.freewarefiles.com/search.php?option=mostrecent

I think the indications are bad if an app turns up on a *lot* of
software sites when it's first introduced. If somebody's marketing an
app there's likely a good reason. The authors of "temporary" Freeware
intend to get a return on their investment. ISTM *only* the authors of
"temporary" Freeware apps are likely to invest considerable time, energy
and money in order to introduce that app to a large audience.

I see this when I'm searching for last freeware versions and finding the
app on *lots* of sites. That often includes many sites that still say
it's Freeware but are now *unknowingly* linking to the newer Shareware
download. . .

On a side note: John Corliss frequently advises to only visit major
freeware sites, particularly ones that try out every program to check
out if it does not contain nasties and is really freeware.

grumble. . . that misbegotten piece of Malware called Taskman that I
posted about today is available at Tucows. . .

While that is good advice from a security point of view, I am glad that
many acf participants also check out programs that are not listed on any
major software/freeware site. There has been found many a jewel from
authors that do not submit their freeware to any major site.
And they certainly tend to stay freeware

Yup - on the whole those apps do stay free.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)