There are many ways that shareware developers and content providers can show disrespect and contempt for their customers. Some are the result of paranoia on the part of the developers while others are the result of laziness and/or blatant greed on their part.

One example of this I frequently encounter is the unrealistic installation limitation.

Once upon a time a family could barely afford a single computer. It wasn’t unreasonable for a shareware distributor to limit the number of computers you could install a single copy of their application on. They fairly reasoned that in the vast majority of cases the only time you would need to install multiple times was if you were letting all your friends install your copy, robbing the developers and distributors of earned income. Thus were born limits on the number of times you could install a copy of software you purchased. The most draconian of these licenses would only allow you to install one time on one computer. Less extreme licenses allowed you to create a backup copy, and family licenses, usually more expensive, allowed you to install the software on two or three other computers on a home local area network (LAN).

I would argue that software manufacturers/distributors these days need to rethink their licensing restrictions with an eye to the current reality.  In the 21st century, despite the economy, families frequently have several computers. More importantly, we are far more likely to update the operating system of our computers at least once in their lifetime. Recently we’ve seen major updates from all the big players, Microsoft with Windows 7, Macintosh with OS X Snow Leopard and several distros of Linux. For many of us these updates required a fresh installation of the OS and a re-installation of all our applications and software, at least those programs that allowed us to reinstall. No one should have to face the loss of a favorite application simply because they’ve updated their computer from XP to Vista and now to 7. “Oh sorry, you’ve exceeded the number of installations allowed under the terms of use”. Users shouldn’t be penalized for trying to keep their systems current. Personally I’ve encountered these limitations with (former) favorites like RoboForm and DFX Pro. I’m sure you can think of a few examples yourself. I don’t mind having to call and explain that I’m reinstalling on the same computer after an OS upgrade. But I resent encountering the presumption that I’m pirating software and being told I have to re-purchase the software with no other option offered.

Here’s a thought; Make your software able to read the machine address (MAC address) of the computer at installation. With every re-installation it reads the MAC address and if it’s the same (machine addresses aren’t based on the operating system) it re-installs without a fuss.

Developers need to do a better job to accommodate  their customers in the legal and reasonable use of their software. They need to quit assuming their customers are out to do nothing but take advantage of them. Every day there are more and more updated and often no-cost alternatives to pricey applications. If you want to retain your customers and encourage their loyalty treat them with respect and construct your licenses in accordance with the current realities of computer ownership. Alternatively, keep your pricing low so that I can afford to purchase a license for my desktop, laptop and netbook.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 7 reasons not to upgrade to Windows 7 (en.onsoftware.com)
• Windows 7 already bigger than Snow Leopard and Linux combined (downloadsquad.com)
• Opinion: Is Windows 7 as good as it sounds? (netnewsdaily.com)
• Netbook Linux Guide Lets You Easily Kick Windows XP To The Curb [Linux] (gizmodo.com)
• Microsoft to schools: Share a PC (news.cnet.com)