[8593] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The 'Property is Theft' theory of software development
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Erik E. Fair" (Your Friendly Postm)
Thu Nov 25 01:51:56 1993
From: "Erik E. Fair" (Your Friendly Postmaster) <fair@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <0219931115211500/0005066432NA1EM-d100000@MCIMAIL.COM>
To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 22:51:16 -0800
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 22:04:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: The 'Property is Theft' theory of software development
Message-Id: <0219931115211500/0005066432NA1EM-d100000@MCIMAIL.COM>
Does anyone seriously believe Quicken could be sold for $39.00
if there wasn't a copying prohibition? Without the ability to
have the exclusive right to reproduce a package, the only way a
company can protect a product is to charge high prices and
rigid control, or sell programs in boxcar-sized loads from poly
bags for just above cost of production. In *that* case you
ain't gonna see complicated programs being made.
As I understand it from an MBA friend of mine who works (worked?) for
Intuit (the folks who wrote "Quicken"), their business model is that
they're not making their money off the software itself - they're
making money off selling checks for the program to print on, and a
dozen other aftermarket items & services. This is a fine example of
"give away the razorblade handle, and *sell* the razorblades."
Apple is pursuing a similar strategy with the Newton.
Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com
