Summary: Trial software packages use various techniques to enforce the trial period. There's one sure way to keep using software after the period has expired.
Where is it recorded that a program can be used only for 30 days and then must be purchased? Though I've uninstalled it, it remembers the previous installation and will not let me re-install it.
•
Free trials are a great way to try-before-you-buy software, so that you can determine whether or not an application is in fact the right solution for you, before you put down your hard earned money.
Applications use different techniques to track the free trial period.
But using the application after the trial period is over, is often still very, very easy.
•
Buy the software.
Seriously, by far the most effective, and I have to say ethical, way to keep using software past its trial period - however long that might be - would be to purchase it. The software is not free, and the provider has allowed you to try it out. If you've decided that you want to keep using it then the right thing to do is to spend the money and buy it.
Can't afford it? Well, you're not entitled to a free copy, so your choice is clear: don't use it, or use something else.
I know that's not the answer you were looking for, but it's the right answer.
To actually answer the question you asked...
Programs keep track of trial period in different ways. The most obvious is by using a registry entry, perhaps an obscure one, that as you've seen is left behind after the program is uninstalled. Where in the registry this might be kept is anyone's guess, and will vary from application to application.
That's the obvious way, and it's actually not that difficult for someone with a little technical expertise to reverse-engineer.
So, other applications might use other techniques. Hidden files, benign modifications to other files ... some have even been known to write to hidden parts of your hard disk.
So for the average user, it's a tough situation to overcome. You could install on another machine for another trial period, but I'm guessing you'll eventually run out of machines. (Though using Virtual Machines for this purpose, while a fair amount of work, could be used to "look like" a new machine each time.)
But, honestly, if it's worth that much effort, it's gotta be worth the purchase price.
Just buy the software.
Article C3677 - March 16, 2009
Is anyone serious in their thinking that a program a company possibly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on to develop should be free?
Posted by: Tom at February 2, 2010 2:16 PMIf so, it only goes to prove that you cannot reason with an idiot!!
I've read or scanned all the articles in this thread. Having been on the development teams for several shareware and retail software products I first am inclined to agree with the pay to play philosophy. Yes, I have seen how many human hour go into developing a well-designed, and well-supported, software product.
However, I think there are other economic issues involved that the online market does not address as well as the physical retail market. Producers of many physical products maximize profits over time by working through a price curve. Initial prices are high because early adopters are willing to pay more. A time passes, the price of the product is lowered to reach different segments of the market. This pricing curve is vanilla economics for most retail products. It enables a company to maximize profits by working down through demographic strata of disposable income. This doesn't really translate as well to non-physical products with a very short life, such as software. The whole selling curve is compressed and the pool of buyers is homogenized and hard to differentiate. So software producers don't have as much incentive to lower prices over time to reach different markets as much as say, producers of flat-screen TVs. On top of this, software producers that have little competition have very little incentive to reduce prices since that would do little but cut into their own profits.
My main point in this ramble is that this is more an issue of economics and marketing theory than some personal issue of consumers being mistreated. In bringing up this perspective, I don't pretend to have the answers but instead to encourage another perspective on the issue which I think more reflects the realities of the software market. Any economics/marketing professionals out there who want to weigh in with a more informed view from this perspective?
Posted by: Brett at February 2, 2010 4:25 PMThere is one piece of Software that I would pirate. I would Pirate Windows 7 ULTIMATE IF and ONLY IF I had purchased Windows Vista ULTIMATE. The reason for this is that the extra money paid was supposed to go towards Windows Ultimate Extras which never eventuated. If this happened in any physical product (i.e. a convection oven that has no convection as promised) then you would be entitled to a refund. In this instance, the refund is equivalent in value to the newer version of Ultimate.
Posted by: Pookey at February 3, 2010 5:45 AMThis is in response to Brett's posting. I am not a marketing guru of any type, but I am a long-time software user, of all types. I am constantly looking to improve my system and all the peripheral software, and I am convinced that because the software industry (including the "BIG TWO", Microsoft and Apple) is a different type of commodity environment, it is easy to justify stealing from the little guy. This industry knows we need their products. For whatever reason (honest need, or computer junkie), we cannot do without the software to keep us in business and online, and most of try to do this in the most up-to-date manner. Again, the software industry knows this. We are hooked, for better or worse. Whenever I have to purchase a piece of software, I do so with the full knowledge that it is a needed expense. If I can find a way to minimize the cost of the software, I do so with a clear conscience. If I can find a way to get the needed software for free (however I can do it), I do this, also, with a clear conscience. This is called "adjusting to your environment", and it has worked for me for many years. I am running an HP Pavilion Elite that I only paid $400 for (new), and I am running Windows 7 Professional (full) that I only paid $30 for. My monitor is a Compaq W1907, and it cost $99. Most of my major software is beta, with the exception of Office Ultimate 2007 ($72). There are some of us out here in the virtual world who have learned how to deal with the economics of "COMPUTER" in a guerrilla fashion. I believe this is, for me, the only ethical - and economic - means to stay in the computer age. I do not lose any sleep over this position, at all.
Posted by: jwmore at February 3, 2010 7:59 AMThere are a whole lotta people out there who want something for nothing, and the quality of their life reflects that. They think that only their hard work deserves to be rewarded . . . but not anyone else's.
Posted by: Lee Nelson Guptill at February 24, 2010 10:50 AM