Hey guys - I am tossing this reply out there cause I had it laying around on my desktop for a few days; I realize that the discussion has mostly wound down but I wanted to add soem items.

CyberStretch - "Sounds a little contradictory to me. On one hand you are stating that companies would not allow cracked software on their systems. On the other, you are stating that it has been your previous experience that they do, in fact, use cracked or illegal software. Which is it?"

They were more than happy to run illegal software. Specifically in all Windows versions until XP all you had to do was be willing to put the same "key" into every machine you loaded. There was no technical risk and no inherent security problem.

There is no contradiction because that is specifically what I meant to convey :)

CyberStretch - "Historically, companies have been one of the worse offenders for software piracy, not the home users."

That would depend on how you see it. For instance of course a company will pirate more software at a time, but collectively I feel that home users account for much more total pirate copies. But in the end that isn't an issue... the issue is, does the protection stop enough piracy to be worth it and the answer is yes. If companies ARE the primary culprits than protection is even stronger an option because companies are much less likely to use cracked software.

CyberStretch - "WAY ahead? As in the amount of sales they made outnumbered the ones they would have without the protection? I highly doubt this is the case. There are many businesses and consumers who have sworn that they will never purchase XP or any other OS that contains these protection schemes. I fail to see how a relatively small subsection of previously illegal users constitutes enough of a sample to claim that MS is "WAY ahead" in terms of overall sales."

I can only speak from what I see as any studies on this are purely speculative. While I am sure many businesses swore not to upgrade - how many have since changed their minds? How many home users are now running XP on their new computer? In the industry itself I don't see any concerted resistance to XP outside of the fringe.

CyberStretch - "Ref the linked article. It seems that the industry does not agree that XP (in this case, initial sales) has even lived up to the sales figures of W98."

A few thoughts - Comparing the initial sales of XP to the initial sales of 98 and 95 is a useless number, though fun. :)

1. A large number of those who would have purchased a boxed upgrade purchased a new machine with XP in it, for example.
2. Many factors influence initial sales, a fact mentioned specifically in many of the articles you are pointing too.
3. Windows XP is a more expensive upgrade then Win98 was, and in weaker economy.

Just to name a few. In fact, to quote one of 'your' articles...

"Dyckovsky attributed XPs slow retail start to a number of factors including the weak economy, the saturated PC market, and presales of Windows XP PCs. While consumers had to wait until Oct 25 to get a boxed copy of Windows XP, PC makers shipped the operating system on new computers a full month earlier. Additionally, more consumers upgrade their operating systems by buying entirely new computers, rather than buying new versions of Windows to put on older PCs, according to Dyckovsky and several others. Sales were probably not what Microsoft expected last spring, he said. But its probably very close to what they expected after Sept 11.  - full text

"The XP sales figures also don't take into account copies of the operating system included on new PCs, which makes comparisons with previous products even more tenuous. Today more consumers upgrade their operating system by buying a new computer than they did in the past." - full text

And most importantly...

"The hype surrounding XP is more subdued than the Windows 95 ballyhoo, in part because of a marketing campaign that has been overshadowed by the 11 September terrorist attacks and the slumping economy." - full text

So a huge number of factors, including the most devastating attack on our nation in history might have had an effect on the sales, I think we can safely say that those sales figures mean very little.

I know what I, and those I work with, are seeing in clients and home users with our own eyes. IF you don't want to go with that then that's fine, but your articles don't make a convincing case.

CyberStretch - "This too is an unfounded claim that I have not seen any indication of its validity. In fact, if you make something HARDER for the end user, you are more likely to push them more toward software piracy than away from it."

I didn't say harder for the end user, I said harder to pirate :) And it isn't an unfounded claim, it is based on personal experience with clients and home users. You are welcome to not take my word for it - but it is far from unfounded.

CyberStretch - "TTBOMK, no one is claiming that software piracy does not adversely affect software sales. However, just like in brick-and-mortar businesses, breakage and theft are accepted business expenses that businesses take on themselves, usually by raising the prices to cover the anticipated losses."

And when technical means to reduce that loss come along many stores take advantage of it. For instance you woudl have a heard time finding a Blockbuster store that didn't have anti-theft devices o their inventory; even though those devices may occasionally inconvenience some customers.

Having been an area manager for a retail chain in NJ, I can assure you that every possible avenue for reducing shrinkage is evaluated, and many are employed when possible. From sensor tags ont he items to those dye markers on clothing in retail clothing stores.

Anti-piracy devices are EXTREMELY common on high ticket retail items.

CyberStretch - "Yes, the placebo effect that "protection schemes" have on the investors. Nothing more than following suit of other software developers, regardless if that pursuit is fruitful or not."

You are assuming that the effect is only a placebo and constructing your theory to explain it; that's fine but hardly a causal relationship. On the other hand, you are way off base if you think that such a placebo effect would be worth doing, investors care only about the bottom line - so if you could not show that the expense had been worth it there would be a strong backlash.

**CyberStretch - ** "I would like to challenge any software developer to release two versions of their software: one with and one without a protection scheme, and see what the purchasing public's "voting dollars" have to say about it. When you only have one option, it is hard to qualitfy and/or quantify what could/should/would have transpired if both options were available."

Such an experiment would be meaningless. The issue at stake is whether strong protection increases sales. The availability of an unprotected version would dramatically increase the piracy rate and invalidate the experiment.

Your option set is the important one, and the absolute core of our disagreement.

**CyberStretch - ** "What can be done about it? A) Nothing, B) Protection, C) Waiting for a Viable Option."

The issue is that me, and others, clearly believe that B >is< a viable option.

CyberStretch -

"B) Protection:

• Costs:

• Company: More administration; support costs; and the cost of the protection and implementation.
• Customer: Aggravation and frustration with the additional steps to use the software; longer hold times for support; less system/software stability.
• Warez: Unhindered."
   

The key one is the tension between (cost + customer) vs. warez. You are portraying warez as "unhindered", yet many of us who actually see this sort of thing have seen warez be hindered by good protection, in some cases dramatically hindered.

All I can say is that the evidence is from my (and many others points of view) obvious and clear but to you it will be anecdotal. When software developers decide to protect they are going with their experiences and those of their trusted advisers.

A cool discussion all around, thanks specially to CS for arguing his point well and without the sort of personal attack that often enters piracy discussions.