>I would like to say something about the idea that the>"customer is always right".>>Anyone who has worked in a customer service industry would>probably agree that there will always be people who are just>not worth having as customers.>>All of us, I am sure, have had the experience of standing>behind some jerk at Mcdonalds who spends 10 minutes cussing at>the counter person because they forgot to put catsup on his>kid's happy meal burger. Undoubtedly, the manager will come>out and apologize profusely to this idiot and give him some>free food, even though what he really deserves is to be>dragged out of the store and told never to return.>>When I was young I worked a lot of retail, and I cannot even>begin to express how much I completely lost all faith in>humanity through the experience. >>Companies need to draw the line with unreasonable people>somewhere. At some point, they need to simply say "We don't>really want your business. Thank you and goodbye." Too often>in this society, people have this strange notion that they>deserve whatever they want, just because they are a customer,>and they can feel free to be as abusive and unreasonable as>they like.>>I am not suggesting that this rant has anything to do with>this particular example, but I do think that the idea of the>"customer is always right" gives some people the idea that>they can go through life ignoring simple common courtesy and>civility (not to mention trying to mooch as many freebies as>possible -- i.e. people who make a habit of complaining in>restaraunts to get free food).>>Often, the customer is wrong, and he needs to be shown the>door if he can't deal with it.I AGREE COMPLETELY!

My customers are always right. It's just that the ones who demand that they are right are generally pains in the backside. They are still right, but they get to pay for the privilage. :-) (I own a machine shop... we charge by the hour). :-cool

Cheers GregFloydwww.stollco.com

>technology that hasn't proven that it does anything to stop>the pirates.Who are these pirates ? I am afraid the problem with this discussion has been that those "pirates" are implied to be some super computer hackers that steal software by dozens. This is probably not what the companies are trying to protect themselves from since it is very difficult to stop a very determined pro. What companies probably want is to keep honest people honest - and I bet a casual "thief" is responsible for much more sales losses than those few pros. And the hardware-binding technology *does* protect them from those casual thieves.Michael J.

<>But at what cost? Losing some of their honest customers who refuse to deal with such techology? Sorry, Michael J., it just doesn't make good business sense to me.Cheers,

Tom,If you look through todays post regarding the downloading of FS 2004 you will see I was the first to answer, and you will find my position on Software Piricy. I support their System. But what I dont Support, is their way of enforcing it.AS for the rest whatever!!, I dont like their attituide, and as far as im conerend the Commander was my only & last purchase. I want the Chyne like you dont know, but ill not be treated like an idiot or spoke like a theif, when a problem caused was not my fault, and then not to receive an appology when they finally worked out it was their fault.Regardless of what this topic is about, my experince should be noted. As for whoes methods works best, hmm lets see, in order of best to worse...FLight 1PSSLAGOPMDGCapatinSim (only cus you have to wait ages for the key)FSDJason

><from those casual thieves.>>>>But at what cost? Losing some of their honest customers who>refuse to deal with such techology? Precisely ... at what cost ? I would like to know myself and see some solid data. Maybe fewer customers get turned off than you think. I bet some of the loudest complainers here (despite their public proclamations) will be quick to download again from FSD or anyone else as soon as their favorite aircraft shows up and will grudgingly put up with any licensing restrictions imposed on them.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Tom is right. The real issue of this discussion is the hardware binding method of software protection. The customer does have some legitimate concerns in this. Privacy is a very big issue these days and is going to get bigger. Information is power and power often gets abused. Governments and private businesses who extract your private information on every transaction can very easily abuse the power of that information. And customers need to be aware.Business of course have their concerns. Straight up software code is very easily stolen and I can understand business wanting to make it more difficult for it from being casually pirated. (The keeping an honest man honest argument.)What I don't understand is business being dishonest about what they are doing. They hide their intent in a hundred line long, small print EULA that is difficult to read and understand. If their protection scheme is to bind the product to one single machine then they should tell the customer this up front, in plain everyday language (not lawyerese). If their intent is to track how a customer uses a product, then they should be honest about this as well. Say, "we at XCompany are going to track via the internet how you use or abuse our product." Honesty works both ways.If they did this, the customer can then make the decision to purchase or not with all the information available to him. Privacy issues included. So the question for the consumer to ask, is using the product important enough to you for you to surrender your private information?The question for the business to ask, are we going to lose enough customers to damage our profit line if we use intrusive protection schemes, or will we lose more from casual piracy if we don't?Dave Spurlock

<>Now is when I turn the tables on you, Micharl J. If you are so certain that machine binding does indeed stop piracy, please present your eveidence. And while you're at it, be objective and show us how many customers have stepped away from purchasing products tied to machine binding. You and I both know we'll never see those numbers... because no one tracks that data.We could go around like this forever. My point is that I make a choice to stay away from payware that uses machine binding technolgy. And judging from the response to these two threads, I believe it's safe to say many others share the same position. If you are alright with the technolgy, then I say "Cool for you". Go for it. I won't be... no matter how you may debate the issue. My money, my choice.Thanks,

Allow me to add my thoughts:1) The customer's chances of being right are a)inversely proportional to the financial well-being of the company and b)directly proportional to the profit that the company might expect to make from the said customer. Nothing else!2) AFAIK FSD's new system has been hacked. I think that the best form of software protection so far (with all its drawbacks) had been the one employed by CS.3) DF always used the easiest to violate types of software protection known to man. Having said that the 737 is methinks the most popular airliner of all times in terms of sales. Makes you wonder? I, as well as many other people I know, had a pirated copy at arm's reach yet opted for the original. This was more due to the fact that I wanted the full DF experience than anything else. If I would ever end up contemplating about buying an illegal copy of something it would be mostly due to the fact that I wouldn't really want-need it at the first place.If you don't want to compare apples and oranges (I never figured out this expression; biensur one can compare different fruits no?), I also think that the Archer and Cardinal sell better than FSD's offerings. The argument is that if you manage to become a "household" name in the sense that DF have become then you needn't fear pirating that much and you can actually afford some piracy going on, estimating that it might eventually help increase your sales(I imangine that Lou Betty might have a different view on this...).You can also have a look at PSS as others here have suggested. Very easy to hack, share etc. yet they managed to make enough so as to donate a significant amount of money to a worthy aviation cause. Having said all that I don't believe that FSD planes are substandard, quite the contrary, just that they perhaps don't fill the average simmer with the same enthusiasm that DF products do. In my opinion FSD people should look at this a bit more instead of trying so hard to make their software "pirate-proof".Kind regards,

>So the question for the consumer to ask, is using the product>important enough to you for you to surrender your private>information?>>The question for the business to ask, are we going to lose>enough customers to damage our profit line if we use intrusive>protection schemes, or will we lose more from casual piracy if>we don't?I agree. It boils down to these 2 fundamental questions. Both sides have to sort it out what's in their best interest.Michael J.

It is time to focus this thread where it really needs to be. Since customers don't want anti-piracy coding, tell us a way to stop the piracy. When as much as 25% of their income is in effect stolen how can the developer protect himself.I think it is patently unfair to attack the current solution without proposing an effective alternative. http://www.avsim.com/pages/robert/kirkland.jpg

Roger that, Dave.:-beerchug

>Now is when I turn the tables on you, Micharl J. If you are>so certain that machine binding does indeed stop piracy,>please present your eveidence. Evidence is this - I can't use software downloaded by my friend. We can't split the tab and pay for FSD's Seneca and having it working on both PCs. The hardware binding is an obstacle I would not know how to bypass. I am an 'average' user. Yes, we could lie to FSD and possibly come up with some story to justify this double installation but being an 'average' user I would decide it is not worth the grief, hassle and potential embarrassment to save $15. I would buy the software. I can bet this "friend" situation is responsible for most sales losses. It is keeping honest people honest. Michael J.

Exactly Bob. So, let the masses speak... How the hell do commercial providers overcome the theft of their product? Lots of #### and complaining about methods currently in use, but very few if any suggestions on improvements or alternatives. Come on folks; pony up with some suggestions rather than the continuing plinking at FSD and others!