|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Bob,
You are a great contributor to this list and I value your presence. Your
knowledge of TS and related areas is tremendous.
However, I have to disagree with many of your comments regarding
copy-protection. Simply stating that 8.5 billion dollars was lost last year
to piracy does not indicate how Omega, specifically, would be hurt by
piracy. How many people, represented by that $8.5 billion, would have
purchased the software if it was "locked". I venture to say - not many.
Let me give you an example. I, like many of you I am sure, have a number of
"shareware" programs on my computer that I have not paid the shareware fee
for. Can the author be said to be "losing" this revenue? Of course not,
because if I was forced to pay for these programs or delete them from my
machine, I would delete them - not pay for them. If I find a program truly
useful and the support necessary (like a trader would find TradeStation),
then they will pay the fee. [And I have paid the shareware fee for the
unusual shareware program that I find truly irreplaceable. [And once I pay
the fee, the software is not "locked" to my machine, either.]]
Others on this list have already given examples of "vertical market"
programs that survive quite well without any copy-protection at all. Someone
mentioned AutoCAD. What about Metastock and Omnitrader? Surely each of these
programs are in the same ball-park as TradeStation in the cost to develop
and support. I would venture to say that the "majority" of vertical market
software is not copy-protected.
I, too, am in the software business, and I produce a vertical market program
for asset management (not financial assets) that is not copy-protected. I'm
not too concerned. A user would be out of his mind to trust his valuable
data and efforts to a pirated piece of software with no support. I think
that TradeStation is in the same camp. Why does Omega want to harass its
clients when the vast majority of other companies gave up on this idea in
the early 80's?
I love TradeStation, even with its flaws, and I look forward to version 5.0.
However, if another company comes out with a product with similar system
development features (i.e., DayTrader Pro) and it is offered without copy
protection - Omega will get killed. Copy-protection will not save Omega, it
will be the other way around.
Blaine Mathieu
Turning Point Trading Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scientific Approaches <sci@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Omega Mailing List <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 1:52 PM
Subject: Be careful, you might get what you ask for!
>
>Omega's decision to change to a different software copy protection scheme
>likely stems primarily from customer complaints about the security block.
>No one likes security blocks.
>
>However, $8,420,294,000 was lost to software piracy in North America and
>Pacific rim countries in 1995. An additional $4,249,944,00 was lost in
>Europe (Source BSA/SPA). At least one of every two software applications
in
>use was an illegal copy. Software developers suffered license fee losses
of
>over 90% in some markets. That is why more and more developers are
choosing
>to protect their work.
>
>No one likes copy protection, but the only alternative is to not have a
>product like TradeStation at all, because products like that cost millions
>of dollars to develop and the Internet makes it extremely easy to
distribute
>unlicensed copies. Without protection, a program like TradeStation would
be
>posted at Web and FTP sites throughout the world where illegal copies could
>be downloaded. License revenue would be too small to even pay back
>development expenses, let alone make a profit.
>
>Users often fail to realize the differences between horizontal and vertical
>market software products in regard to copy protection. Horizontal market
>products (products usable by most everyone) have huge licensing potential.
>Major horizontal market programs like Access, Excel, and Word also cost
>millions of dollars to develop, but there are millions of customers, so
>individual license fees can be very small. They can be so small that
>products like that sometimes can be licensed for little more than what the
>user manuals would cost if purchased at a bookstore. Because the license
>fees are so small and because users want the manuals, illegal copying is
>less of a problem than with vertical market software. It still is a
>significant problem, but less of a problem.
>
>Vertical market software is software that is of interest to only a small
>segment of computer users. TradeStation is a vertical market product.
>Vertical market software can be just as costly to develop as horizontal
>market software, but the customer base is much smaller. Because there are
>fewer customers, each customer has to pay more to pay back development
>expense and provide a reasonable profit.
>
>Because the potential customer base is small and product development
expense
>is high, vertical market software usually is supplied with less and with
>lower quality printed documentation. The combination of higher license
fees
>and less valuable printed documentation makes illegal copying very
tempting.
> So tempting, that it is not economically feasible to supply sophisticated
>vertical market software without copy protection.
>
>Consequently, Omega can choose only between having copy protection or not
>offering TradeStation. There is no other commercially viable alternative.
>
>I can speak with the benefit of more experience than most about the
relative
>merits of software and hardware copy protection schemes, because Scientific
>Approaches has marketed copy protected vertical market software for years.
>Until recently we have used a software copy protection method of our own
>design. It is extraordinarily secure. We are not aware that it ever has
>been successfully violated. However, it suffers from the inconveniences
>others have pointed out on the list.
>
>Customers have to contact us to obtain a new registration code whenever
they
>upgrade to a new computer or make certain changes to an old computer. That
>is inconvenient to them and to us. Furthermore, we have to trust that
>customers actually have upgraded to a new computer and that they are not
>simply trying to run an additional unlicensed copy. There are fixes for
>that problem, but they introduce additional problems.
>
>Because of these problems, we recently switched to hardware security
blocks.
> The blocks we use are more sophisticated and have many advantages compared
>to the more primitive variety used by Omega. They don't need to be
>installed on a printer port. There is a serial port version or a card that
>can be installed in a PC bus internally, so nothing hangs out the back of a
>computer. However, all these variations add cost to our products and
>customers would prefer to not have any of them.
>
>As I read various complaints on this list, I often think Omega users
>wouldn't want what they demand if Omega provided it, because they would
like
>the tradeoffs even less. Users should be careful about what they demand,
>because they might get it. Software protection has certain advantages, but
>overall, after years of experience with the problems, we have decided
>hardware security is best. I think both Omega and their customers will
>regret the decision to move from hardware security blocks.
>
>However, as we grumble, we shouldn't forget why Omega probably made that
>decision. We should be sure we actually want what we demand, before we
>demand it.
>
> -Bob Brickey
> Scientific Approaches
> sci@xxxxxxxxxx
>
|