[OT] More info about Windows XP's new Activation scheme
Sorry I don't have the URL this came from.
Windows Product Activation: More Details In last month's Windows 2000 Magazine UPDATE Special Edition, I explained what I knew about the new Windows Product Activation feature built into Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, and the various flavors of Windows 2002 Server. (In case you missed the fanfare--Microsoft has revealed the product name of what we've been calling "Whistler Server"--Windows 2002 Server.) Many of you--hundreds of you--responded with interesting and helpful insights. A particularly interesting response came from one of the Microsoft folks working on product activation, Allen Nieman. Nieman is a product manager in the Licensing Technologies group. He was kind enough to spend about an hour and a half with me on the phone to fill in more details about how product activation works, and I can't thank him enough for his help. Because I didn't have all of the information about the Windows activation process last month, I had to speculate a bit, so this month I'll pass along what he told me. I'll begin with more specifics about what product activation does. When you install a product that requires activation, it asks that you activate it within 30 days (or that's what the final product will do; it's 14 days in the beta). During the activation process, the OS inventories your hardware and summarizes it as a single 50-digit string. The hash is, I'm told, a one-way function, meaning that although a particular set of hardware will generate a particular set of digits, reversing it isn't easy, so merely knowing the 50 digits about your system wouldn't tell me what size and type of hard disk you owned. But do you believe that's all that Microsoft is gathering? A capture of the transaction shows that a very small amount of data going over the wire to Microsoft, so it doesn't look as if Bill is uploading your portfolio. Additionally, you can choose to activate your OS by calling Microsoft and reading the 50-digit number to a carbon-based life form (rather than sending it to a silicon-based server). The recipient will then read a 42-digit number to you, which you key in to complete your activation. Unfortunately, that's a one-time-only 42-digit value; should you need to reinstall the OS on that system, you must call Microsoft to get another code. As I explained last month, a Microsoft server then stores your 50-digit code and your product key in a database. If someone tries to activate a different machine using your product key, the database will see that someone's tried to install the same copy of the OS on two different machines and will refuse to authorize the activation. Additionally, every time you boot that system, the system recomputes the 50-digit value and, if it's too different from the one used to activate the system in the first place, the OS will demand that you once more connect to the Internet to reactivate your copy. Small hardware changes won't require reactivation. If, however, you lend your neighbor your Windows XP CD-ROM and product key and he installs it on his system and tries to activate it, the Microsoft server will see a radically different set of hardware trying to activate an already activated copy of Windows XP, and will tell your neighbor's system not to activate itself. But how much hardware difference is "too much"? Nieman wouldn't say because (1) Microsoft hasn't finished Windows XP yet, so anything he'd say might change, and (2) he didn't want to make life easier for pirates. A reasonable answer, but I argued that a determined bunch of people with a closet full of hardware and a day or two to play around could (and would) soon figure that out, so why not just release the information anyway? He demurred, but told me to stay tuned, because Microsoft might publish that information come shipping time anyway. But what about when I buy a new machine, FDISK the old one, and put my copy of Windows XP on it--won't Microsoft refuse to activate Windows XP on that new system, thinking that I'm already running it on my old system? No, Nieman said--Microsoft will trust you and approve activating Windows XP on the new system, deactivating it on the old. Rampant piracy among American small businesses and home users motivates the whole approach, according to Nieman. Microsoft believes that on the average, those folks use four copies of a given piece of software but pay for only one. (The company reckons the ratio outside of the United States to be even higher.) Microsoft acquired those numbers from the Business Software Alliance (BSA--see the URL listed at the end of the column), an organization that finds and fines software pirates. I've never seen the methodology that led the BSA to those numbers (which have been floating around for some time), and I personally don't believe them. That 75 percent of the small office/home office (SOHO) software is pirated seems a bit farfetched and, I think, insulting. And if Microsoft truly believes that its home users--you know, the evening and weekend versions of the people who use its commercial products by day--are stealing 75 percent of the Microsoft products they use, that degree of piracy would be pretty important news to Microsoft's stockholders, wouldn't you think? "Here at Microsoft, we have great products, but before you invest, you really ought to know that three out of four people who use our products don't actually pay for them." Shouldn't that information be in the company's annual report or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings? Actually, beyond what you or I think, it's a matter of law: If Microsoft believes in those piracy figures, the company must disclose that information in its SEC filings. But other than one vague reference to piracy in its 10-K filing for 2000, Microsoft is silent about piracy--no numbers, percentages, or damages to the bottom line are cited. No, I'm not suggesting that Microsoft's in violation of investment regulations for not writing "The Prospectus of Penzance"--because I believe that the four-to-one ratio is no more than an exaggeration that provides a convenient bit of self-justification for some industry pundits. But we are talking legal issues here. After all, I pay for all of my software because the law tells me to, not necessarily because I want to. And if the irritation of activation will become part of my life because of a wave of piracy of that supposed magnitude, surely Microsoft should alert its investors to that piracy, by law. And thinking about finances led to another question: What happens if Microsoft goes out of business? No one could activate copies of Windows XP. If Microsoft disappeared, so would your ability to use its software during the inevitable reinstalls. And no, I don't think Microsoft is going belly-up any time soon (unless it keeps up this product activation stuff), but Nieman said that he hoped that this product-activation approach would turn out to be an effective way to protect software companies of all kinds, including many not as sturdy as Microsoft. I'd hate to think that if Intuit disappeared, all of a sudden I wouldn't be able to get to my checkbook or portfolio information! Despite the many other things to consider, I'm about out of space. I don't want to sign off, however, without answering a frequent reader question generated by last month's column. I explained last month that product activation wouldn't apply to those using Open, Select, or Enterprise copies, but many of you disagreed, telling me that your Open, Select, or Enterprise Beta 2 copies require it. According to Microsoft, that's an issue with the beta only. Nieman said that the final copies of Windows XP and Windows Server 2002 won't require activation--so scripts, Ghost, Remote Installation Services (RIS), and the other rollout tools that we know and love will work without a hitch in Windows NT's latest incarnation. And when asked whether Windows XP would target SOHOs as a preparatory step to visiting the activation process on bigger customers next time, Nieman STRONGLY maintained that Microsoft had no intention of doing that. The company feels that it has the piracy issues pretty much under control in large organizations. I repeat in closing that I fully agree that Microsoft has a right to defend its copyrighted works; and I hope that the company will continue to do so. But placing a burden of annoyance on its existing customers seems unreasonable, particularly when the only reason that Microsoft can impose product activation is its pre-eminence in the market. As I said last month, could Microsoft have made such a move when Windows 3.1 came out? Sure. But we'd have all bought OS/2 instead. And that's the point: when you've got competition, then you can do a lot of things that you CAN'T--or at least shouldn't--do once you're a monopoly. http://www.bsa.org Mark Minasi Senior Contributing Editor, Windows 2000 Magazine help@minasi.com
---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson System Administrator Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com Central Texas IT http://www.centraltexasit.com
Yes! This has been what I've been waiting for... a foolproof copyright/activation system. The crackers will have a VERY hard time breaking this.. it's not simply a "here's the key" deal! Now, when people realize that they actually have to PAY for their OS, they'll start looking for "free" alternatives... I bet you that we will see a HUGE insurgance of newbies maybe 1 year after WinXP comes out. Why one year? Because it'll be at that point that people start feeling really "left behind" by windows.. .Microsoft isn't going to release a lot of the new software that will work on anything other than WinXP.. so they'll feel very left behind and they will be forced to either pay up or look somewhere else. Mark my words -- look for a TON of new users between Oct 25, 2001 and Dec 31, 2002... a TON. Laters all, Steven On Friday 25 May 2001 03:48 pm, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Sorry I don't have the URL this came from.
Windows Product Activation: More Details In last month's Windows 2000 Magazine UPDATE Special Edition, I explained what I knew about the new Windows Product Activation feature built into Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, and the various flavors of Windows 2002 Server. (In case you missed the fanfare--Microsoft has revealed the product name of what we've been calling "Whistler Server"--Windows 2002 Server.) Many of you--hundreds of you--responded with interesting and helpful insights. A particularly interesting response came from one of the Microsoft folks working on product activation, Allen Nieman. Nieman is a product manager in the Licensing Technologies group. He was kind enough to spend about an hour and a half with me on the phone to fill in more details about how product activation works, and I can't thank him enough for his help. Because I didn't have all of the information about the Windows activation process last month, I had to speculate a bit, so this month I'll pass along what he told me. I'll begin with more specifics about what product activation does. When you install a product that requires activation, it asks that you activate it within 30 days (or that's what the final product will do; it's 14 days in the beta). During the activation process, the OS inventories your hardware and summarizes it as a single 50-digit string. The hash is, I'm told, a one-way function, meaning that although a particular set of hardware will generate a particular set of digits, reversing it isn't easy, so merely knowing the 50 digits about your system wouldn't tell me what size and type of hard disk you owned. But do you believe that's all that Microsoft is gathering? A capture of the transaction shows that a very small amount of data going over the wire to Microsoft, so it doesn't look as if Bill is uploading your portfolio. Additionally, you can choose to activate your OS by calling Microsoft and reading the 50-digit number to a carbon-based life form (rather than sending it to a silicon-based server). The recipient will then read a 42-digit number to you, which you key in to complete your activation. Unfortunately, that's a one-time-only 42-digit value; should you need to reinstall the OS on that system, you must call Microsoft to get another code. As I explained last month, a Microsoft server then stores your 50-digit code and your product key in a database. If someone tries to activate a different machine using your product key, the database will see that someone's tried to install the same copy of the OS on two different machines and will refuse to authorize the activation. Additionally, every time you boot that system, the system recomputes the 50-digit value and, if it's too different from the one used to activate the system in the first place, the OS will demand that you once more connect to the Internet to reactivate your copy. Small hardware changes won't require reactivation. If, however, you lend your neighbor your Windows XP CD-ROM and product key and he installs it on his system and tries to activate it, the Microsoft server will see a radically different set of hardware trying to activate an already activated copy of Windows XP, and will tell your neighbor's system not to activate itself. But how much hardware difference is "too much"? Nieman wouldn't say because (1) Microsoft hasn't finished Windows XP yet, so anything he'd say might change, and (2) he didn't want to make life easier for pirates. A reasonable answer, but I argued that a determined bunch of people with a closet full of hardware and a day or two to play around could (and would) soon figure that out, so why not just release the information anyway? He demurred, but told me to stay tuned, because Microsoft might publish that information come shipping time anyway. But what about when I buy a new machine, FDISK the old one, and put my copy of Windows XP on it--won't Microsoft refuse to activate Windows XP on that new system, thinking that I'm already running it on my old system? No, Nieman said--Microsoft will trust you and approve activating Windows XP on the new system, deactivating it on the old. Rampant piracy among American small businesses and home users motivates the whole approach, according to Nieman. Microsoft believes that on the average, those folks use four copies of a given piece of software but pay for only one. (The company reckons the ratio outside of the United States to be even higher.) Microsoft acquired those numbers from the Business Software Alliance (BSA--see the URL listed at the end of the column), an organization that finds and fines software pirates. I've never seen the methodology that led the BSA to those numbers (which have been floating around for some time), and I personally don't believe them. That 75 percent of the small office/home office (SOHO) software is pirated seems a bit farfetched and, I think, insulting. And if Microsoft truly believes that its home users--you know, the evening and weekend versions of the people who use its commercial products by day--are stealing 75 percent of the Microsoft products they use, that degree of piracy would be pretty important news to Microsoft's stockholders, wouldn't you think? "Here at Microsoft, we have great products, but before you invest, you really ought to know that three out of four people who use our products don't actually pay for them." Shouldn't that information be in the company's annual report or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings? Actually, beyond what you or I think, it's a matter of law: If Microsoft believes in those piracy figures, the company must disclose that information in its SEC filings. But other than one vague reference to piracy in its 10-K filing for 2000, Microsoft is silent about piracy--no numbers, percentages, or damages to the bottom line are cited. No, I'm not suggesting that Microsoft's in violation of investment regulations for not writing "The Prospectus of Penzance"--because I believe that the four-to-one ratio is no more than an exaggeration that provides a convenient bit of self-justification for some industry pundits. But we are talking legal issues here. After all, I pay for all of my software because the law tells me to, not necessarily because I want to. And if the irritation of activation will become part of my life because of a wave of piracy of that supposed magnitude, surely Microsoft should alert its investors to that piracy, by law. And thinking about finances led to another question: What happens if Microsoft goes out of business? No one could activate copies of Windows XP. If Microsoft disappeared, so would your ability to use its software during the inevitable reinstalls. And no, I don't think Microsoft is going belly-up any time soon (unless it keeps up this product activation stuff), but Nieman said that he hoped that this product-activation approach would turn out to be an effective way to protect software companies of all kinds, including many not as sturdy as Microsoft. I'd hate to think that if Intuit disappeared, all of a sudden I wouldn't be able to get to my checkbook or portfolio information! Despite the many other things to consider, I'm about out of space. I don't want to sign off, however, without answering a frequent reader question generated by last month's column. I explained last month that product activation wouldn't apply to those using Open, Select, or Enterprise copies, but many of you disagreed, telling me that your Open, Select, or Enterprise Beta 2 copies require it. According to Microsoft, that's an issue with the beta only. Nieman said that the final copies of Windows XP and Windows Server 2002 won't require activation--so scripts, Ghost, Remote Installation Services (RIS), and the other rollout tools that we know and love will work without a hitch in Windows NT's latest incarnation. And when asked whether Windows XP would target SOHOs as a preparatory step to visiting the activation process on bigger customers next time, Nieman STRONGLY maintained that Microsoft had no intention of doing that. The company feels that it has the piracy issues pretty much under control in large organizations. I repeat in closing that I fully agree that Microsoft has a right to defend its copyrighted works; and I hope that the company will continue to do so. But placing a burden of annoyance on its existing customers seems unreasonable, particularly when the only reason that Microsoft can impose product activation is its pre-eminence in the market. As I said last month, could Microsoft have made such a move when Windows 3.1 came out? Sure. But we'd have all bought OS/2 instead. And that's the point: when you've got competition, then you can do a lot of things that you CAN'T--or at least shouldn't--do once you're a monopoly. http://www.bsa.org Mark Minasi Senior Contributing Editor, Windows 2000 Magazine help@minasi.com
---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson System Administrator
Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com Central Texas IT http://www.centraltexasit.com
There's no such thing as a foolproof system. Every copy protection scheme in the world is still software, waiting to be stripped from the code. If history is anything to go by, I'd say there'll be pirated copies on the internet about a month before (sic!) MS releases the products Regards Anders On Friday 25 May 2001 21:45, Steven Hatfield wrote:
Yes! This has been what I've been waiting for... a foolproof copyright/activation system. The crackers will have a VERY hard time breaking this.. it's not simply a "here's the key" deal!
Now, when people realize that they actually have to PAY for their OS, they'll start looking for "free" alternatives... I bet you that we will see a HUGE insurgance of newbies maybe 1 year after WinXP comes out.
Why one year? Because it'll be at that point that people start feeling really "left behind" by windows.. .Microsoft isn't going to release a lot of the new software that will work on anything other than WinXP.. so they'll feel very left behind and they will be forced to either pay up or look somewhere else.
Mark my words -- look for a TON of new users between Oct 25, 2001 and Dec 31, 2002... a TON.
Laters all, Steven
Amen. I'm a new user that saw the handwriting on the wall. I'll be damned if I have my OS deactived because I'm an upgrade freak. I plan to build my own like I've always done. I would go ballistic if I had to go through the BS of reactivation because I swapped out my Abit mobo for an Asus with an AMD chip instead of the present Intel chip. Combine these trends with the licensing agreement, the "store all your apps and personal info" on our "secure" M$ server .Net/HailStorm initiative for a meager monthly fee bungle and M$ is being idiotic (thank god for the arrogant and the greedy). Yes, you can expect a slew of newbies on the help line and on the mailing list. Better tell SuSE to up the staff and prime another mail server or two! Just my 2 cents. Curtis Rey On Friday 25 May 2001 02:45 pm, Steven Hatfield wrote:
Yes! This has been what I've been waiting for... a foolproof copyright/activation system. The crackers will have a VERY hard time breaking this.. it's not simply a "here's the key" deal!
Now, when people realize that they actually have to PAY for their OS, they'll start looking for "free" alternatives... I bet you that we will see a HUGE insurgance of newbies maybe 1 year after WinXP comes out.
Why one year? Because it'll be at that point that people start feeling really "left behind" by windows.. .Microsoft isn't going to release a lot of the new software that will work on anything other than WinXP.. so they'll feel very left behind and they will be forced to either pay up or look somewhere else.
Mark my words -- look for a TON of new users between Oct 25, 2001 and Dec 31, 2002... a TON.
Laters all, Steven
On Friday 25 May 2001 03:48 pm, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Sorry I don't have the URL this came from.
Windows Product Activation: More Details In last month's Windows 2000 Magazine UPDATE Special Edition, I explained what I knew about the new Windows Product Activation feature built into Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, and the various flavors of Windows 2002 Server. (In case you missed the fanfare--Microsoft has revealed the product name of what we've been calling "Whistler Server"--Windows 2002 Server.) Many of you--hundreds of you--responded with interesting and helpful insights. A particularly interesting response came from one of the Microsoft folks working on product activation, Allen Nieman. Nieman is a product manager in the Licensing Technologies group. He was kind enough to spend about an hour and a half with me on the phone to fill in more details about how product activation works, and I can't thank him enough for his help. Because I didn't have all of the information about the Windows activation process last month, I had to speculate a bit, so this month I'll pass along what he told me. I'll begin with more specifics about what product activation does. When you install a product that requires activation, it asks that you activate it within 30 days (or that's what the final product will do; it's 14 days in the beta). During the activation process, the OS inventories your hardware and summarizes it as a single 50-digit string. The hash is, I'm told, a one-way function, meaning that although a particular set of hardware will generate a particular set of digits, reversing it isn't easy, so merely knowing the 50 digits about your system wouldn't tell me what size and type of hard disk you owned. But do you believe that's all that Microsoft is gathering? A capture of the transaction shows that a very small amount of data going over the wire to Microsoft, so it doesn't look as if Bill is uploading your portfolio. Additionally, you can choose to activate your OS by calling Microsoft and reading the 50-digit number to a carbon-based life form (rather than sending it to a silicon-based server). The recipient will then read a 42-digit number to you, which you key in to complete your activation. Unfortunately, that's a one-time-only 42-digit value; should you need to reinstall the OS on that system, you must call Microsoft to get another code. As I explained last month, a Microsoft server then stores your 50-digit code and your product key in a database. If someone tries to activate a different machine using your product key, the database will see that someone's tried to install the same copy of the OS on two different machines and will refuse to authorize the activation. Additionally, every time you boot that system, the system recomputes the 50-digit value and, if it's too different from the one used to activate the system in the first place, the OS will demand that you once more connect to the Internet to reactivate your copy. Small hardware changes won't require reactivation. If, however, you lend your neighbor your Windows XP CD-ROM and product key and he installs it on his system and tries to activate it, the Microsoft server will see a radically different set of hardware trying to activate an already activated copy of Windows XP, and will tell your neighbor's system not to activate itself. But how much hardware difference is "too much"? Nieman wouldn't say because (1) Microsoft hasn't finished Windows XP yet, so anything he'd say might change, and (2) he didn't want to make life easier for pirates. A reasonable answer, but I argued that a determined bunch of people with a closet full of hardware and a day or two to play around could (and would) soon figure that out, so why not just release the information anyway? He demurred, but told me to stay tuned, because Microsoft might publish that information come shipping time anyway. But what about when I buy a new machine, FDISK the old one, and put my copy of Windows XP on it--won't Microsoft refuse to activate Windows XP on that new system, thinking that I'm already running it on my old system? No, Nieman said--Microsoft will trust you and approve activating Windows XP on the new system, deactivating it on the old. Rampant piracy among American small businesses and home users motivates the whole approach, according to Nieman. Microsoft believes that on the average, those folks use four copies of a given piece of software but pay for only one. (The company reckons the ratio outside of the United States to be even higher.) Microsoft acquired those numbers from the Business Software Alliance (BSA--see the URL listed at the end of the column), an organization that finds and fines software pirates. I've never seen the methodology that led the BSA to those numbers (which have been floating around for some time), and I personally don't believe them. That 75 percent of the small office/home office (SOHO) software is pirated seems a bit farfetched and, I think, insulting. And if Microsoft truly believes that its home users--you know, the evening and weekend versions of the people who use its commercial products by day--are stealing 75 percent of the Microsoft products they use, that degree of piracy would be pretty important news to Microsoft's stockholders, wouldn't you think? "Here at Microsoft, we have great products, but before you invest, you really ought to know that three out of four people who use our products don't actually pay for them." Shouldn't that information be in the company's annual report or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings? Actually, beyond what you or I think, it's a matter of law: If Microsoft believes in those piracy figures, the company must disclose that information in its SEC filings. But other than one vague reference to piracy in its 10-K filing for 2000, Microsoft is silent about piracy--no numbers, percentages, or damages to the bottom line are cited. No, I'm not suggesting that Microsoft's in violation of investment regulations for not writing "The Prospectus of Penzance"--because I believe that the four-to-one ratio is no more than an exaggeration that provides a convenient bit of self-justification for some industry pundits. But we are talking legal issues here. After all, I pay for all of my software because the law tells me to, not necessarily because I want to. And if the irritation of activation will become part of my life because of a wave of piracy of that supposed magnitude, surely Microsoft should alert its investors to that piracy, by law. And thinking about finances led to another question: What happens if Microsoft goes out of business? No one could activate copies of Windows XP. If Microsoft disappeared, so would your ability to use its software during the inevitable reinstalls. And no, I don't think Microsoft is going belly-up any time soon (unless it keeps up this product activation stuff), but Nieman said that he hoped that this product-activation approach would turn out to be an effective way to protect software companies of all kinds, including many not as sturdy as Microsoft. I'd hate to think that if Intuit disappeared, all of a sudden I wouldn't be able to get to my checkbook or portfolio information! Despite the many other things to consider, I'm about out of space. I don't want to sign off, however, without answering a frequent reader question generated by last month's column. I explained last month that product activation wouldn't apply to those using Open, Select, or Enterprise copies, but many of you disagreed, telling me that your Open, Select, or Enterprise Beta 2 copies require it. According to Microsoft, that's an issue with the beta only. Nieman said that the final copies of Windows XP and Windows Server 2002 won't require activation--so scripts, Ghost, Remote Installation Services (RIS), and the other rollout tools that we know and love will work without a hitch in Windows NT's latest incarnation. And when asked whether Windows XP would target SOHOs as a preparatory step to visiting the activation process on bigger customers next time, Nieman STRONGLY maintained that Microsoft had no intention of doing that. The company feels that it has the piracy issues pretty much under control in large organizations. I repeat in closing that I fully agree that Microsoft has a right to defend its copyrighted works; and I hope that the company will continue to do so. But placing a burden of annoyance on its existing customers seems unreasonable, particularly when the only reason that Microsoft can impose product activation is its pre-eminence in the market. As I said last month, could Microsoft have made such a move when Windows 3.1 came out? Sure. But we'd have all bought OS/2 instead. And that's the point: when you've got competition, then you can do a lot of things that you CAN'T--or at least shouldn't--do once you're a monopoly. http://www.bsa.org Mark Minasi Senior Contributing Editor, Windows 2000 Magazine help@minasi.com
---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson System Administrator
Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com Central Texas IT http://www.centraltexasit.com
On Friday 25 May 2001 21:48, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Sorry I don't have the URL this came from.
Windows Product Activation: More Details In last month's Windows 2000 Magazine UPDATE Special Edition, I
For those interested in the original URL..... http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=21246 Later C.
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Sorry I don't have the URL this came from.
wouldn't you think? "Here at Microsoft, we have great products, but before you invest, you really ought to know that three out of four people who use our products don't actually pay for them." Shouldn't that information be in the company's annual report or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings?
I have question related to this and I would like to hear a few other comments. Does this seem reasonable to you? While there are some who would pirate at almost any price, do you think that if these figures are really true, why not drastically cut the price to induce marginally honest users to actually buy software? I bet that they would get a lot more customers at a lower price with less pirating. Damon Register
* Damon Register (damon.w.register@lmco.com) [010529 09:00]: ->Jonathan Wilson wrote: ->> Sorry I don't have the URL this came from. ->> >wouldn't you think? "Here at Microsoft, we have great products, but ->> >before you invest, you really ought to know that three out of four ->> >people who use our products don't actually pay for them." Shouldn't that ->> >information be in the company's annual report or Securities and Exchange ->> >Commission (SEC) filings? -> ->I have question related to this and I would like to hear a few other ->comments. Does this seem reasonable to you? While there are some ->who would pirate at almost any price, do you think that if these ->figures are really true, why not drastically cut the price to induce ->marginally honest users to actually buy software? I bet that they ->would get a lot more customers at a lower price with less pirating. I doubt it would help. People like getting things for free. It's evident in how many people bitch about the whole .iso thing on this list. I mean people still tape music cd's from friends..they still download mp3's and tape movies they rent from the video store. I think in some cases people pirate things because they can't afford them ..I know I did. I couldn't/wouldn't have paid $300-500 for MSOffice..it's unreasonable to pay that much for an office suite. I think people like stuff they can get for free and as long as they can..they will. It's much easier to spend a dollar on a CDR then $500 on a cd with a tiny little book. Just my 0.02 -- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org ----- If two men agree on everything, you can be sure that only one of them is doing the thinking.
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 12:05 pm, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* Damon Register (damon.w.register@lmco.com) [010529 09:00]: ->Jonathan Wilson wrote: ->> Sorry I don't have the URL this came from. ->> >wouldn't you think? "Here at Microsoft, we have great products, but ->> >before you invest, you really ought to know that three out of four ->> >people who use our products don't actually pay for them." Shouldn't that ->> >information be in the company's annual report or Securities and Exchange ->> >Commission (SEC) filings? -> ->I have question related to this and I would like to hear a few other ->comments. Does this seem reasonable to you? While there are some ->who would pirate at almost any price, do you think that if these ->figures are really true, why not drastically cut the price to induce ->marginally honest users to actually buy software? I bet that they ->would get a lot more customers at a lower price with less pirating.
I doubt it would help. People like getting things for free. It's evident in how many people bitch about the whole .iso thing on this list. I mean people still tape music cd's from friends..they still download mp3's and tape movies they rent from the video store. I think in some cases people pirate things because they can't afford them ..I know I did. I couldn't/wouldn't have paid $300-500 for MSOffice..it's unreasonable to pay that much for an office suite.
I think people like stuff they can get for free and as long as they can..they will. It's much easier to spend a dollar on a CDR then $500 on a cd with a tiny little book.
Just my 0.02
Which is precisely my point from an earlier post.. once they can't get it for free any more (ie. it becomes either totally impossible, or it's possible but you have to be able to get a hold of an extremely rare version of the product), people will begin to look at "free" software -- because they can get it for "free", and they really like that :-) I know that is one of the many reasons I chose Linux.. I don't have to worry about anyone busting down my door and taking my computer... I'm fully legit, and I still haven't spent more than $150-$200 on software! Where Microsoft is concerned, you can't even get the OS for that price. Have a great day! -Steven
hi all, i really think that even this activation scheme wont protect the software really. in fact, its only one piece of of code that does some calculations on some values and compare it. so why not skipping this check ??? even better, if they include this check only in the os as a general function that is then used by other apps like office xp. so a potential cracker has to do the work only once. there are a lot of key generators outside (even for this challenge-response type of authentication) and even dongles are simulated now by a small piece of software. im pretty sure that it is only a matter of (short) time until someone has figured out how to crack this crap. and if you have 30 days to work without a activation key, this is enough time to start such a keygen app and produce your own key....... who the hell came up with the idea that software can be protected via software ??? (and even dongles can be considered a software-only protection scheme as they are used by special librarys.....) if they are comparing the input (response) they must somehow already computed a valid response internally (i.e. in the software itself). so the routines are there, or ?? a suggestion to all software producers out there selling software and protecting them : spend your time on fixing old bugs & enhance functionality. and not on crearting new protection schemes which all will fail sooner or later. does anyone know a product that hasnt been cracked (or at least where the used scheme was cracked in some other software [i.e. license managers like the one used in softimage]) ?? i dont...... i am really happy about linux, it allows me to do my work and my hobbys without spending loads of bucks to get the tools needed. no need for cracked software anyway. and if i can have a base system, which is really stable and performant, and also provides me a lot of software for free, it is no problem for me to spend money on applications a really want to use but are not available as free software. you buy a computer for a lot of bucks, so you should be at least able to do some basic stuff on it without paying more and more (i.e. writing letters, internet, etc....) or do you buy a tool like a drill and then pay an additional fee for every hole you make with it ?? (or to buy a cable to connect it to the power line, because its missing in the "as delivered" form ?) m$ should start and fix the loads of bugs in their *EXISTING* applications and then make these "bugfixed" releases available for free or little cost to the customers. and after this is done, and only then, they should consider making a new version. what they are doing actually is to fix few bugs, and resell that bugfixed version as a new version, giving the impression that all prior version had no bugs et all. some can come to the conclusion that some companys trying to set up defacto standards and after that only produce buggy software to have a reason to sell the next version (buggy also, of course !) what lousy programmers must they be when they are playing this game........ greets, chris -- visit me at http://mamalala.de
participants (8)
-
Anders Johansson -
Ben Rosenberg -
Christian Klippel -
Clayton Cornell -
Curtis Rey -
Damon Register -
Steven Hatfield -
wilson＠claborn.net