Nepal pictures, history, people, facts

Thats the idea but the reality is Without software CNET would not be. I find this hard to believe.  I think CNET could exist just fine without download.com.  They still do plenty of other things besides hosting a download site. Chris Ryan RyTech Software

other shareware sites will cost you $99/month/product. You are correct, you can get the same and actually a lot better service for free.  But, it would be hard to get the same exposure from any other site for free. I think they are testing the perceived value their site brings to authors to generate extra revenue. Chris Ryan RyTech Software

It's a bit like a big company where business gets a little weak. Just sack a couple of thousand employees and the stockholders will be pleased. The company doesn't owe its employees anything so they shouldn't complain... But, you have to consider the following : 1.) We are not CNET employees, we are authors that they have LET use their site 2.) They are not sacking us, they are charging us for using their site for our benefit 3.) They DONT owe us anything...in fact...many of us probably owe them.  Their site has probably brought more $$$ (cumulatively) to individual software developers than any other site. 4.) Realistically, CNET does not need software developers.  They do far more than simply offer a download site.  They publish magaizes, reviews, and host of other services. 5.) Is there any reason to expect a company to NOT maximize profits simply because it is large? Chris Ryan RyTech Software 1./2.) You're deliberately taking this 'analogy' too literal. For what cause? 3.) I don't really care whether they feel they owe us something or not, but I sure don't feel I owe them anything! Why should I? 4.) Sure CNet doesn't need software developers for their whole operation but they DO need them to fill their download site and that's what were discussing here. Sure Cnet does a lot more but it's obvious to (almost) anyone here that in this discussion CNet stands for the download site part of their activities since that's what started all this and that's what the message everyone has received by now is about. It doesn't say anything about their other activities so why do YOU bring them uo here? 5.) Is there any reason to expect a company to be happy about another company maximizing profits at their cost? To put it bluntly: whose side are you on? I don't want this to sound offensive or anything, but what reason is there for a developer, who's at the wrong end of this, to defend this new move. Receiving CNets message today I reread it and it felt a bit like a scam. They're going to charge us and expect us to believe we have reason to be glad about it but can't give any good reason, only some vague assumptions. Surely this is not supposed to be a matter of 'belief' versus 'snake oil'? Kind regards, Remco Onwijs http://www.onwijs.com/

Chris Ryan RyTech Software Terry Swiers < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message Derek, Don't know what i'm going to do concerning CNET; how about the other authors out there? I see the CNet submission fees as the price of advertising my package on Download.com.  I spend a couple hundred bucks a month on overture and an couple hundred more on Google, so spending $100 to get my software updated on Download.com every 4 or 5 months is not that big of an increase in my advertising budget. Why try turn this into an argument about whether we should or should not pay? The real question is: Does C|Net provide sufficient value to justify what it is demanding? I believe that C|Net is about to find out that it does not. Only my opinion, but evidently many agree.

Thats the idea but the reality is Without software CNET would not be. I find this hard to believe.  I think CNET could exist just fine without download.com.  They still do plenty of other things besides hosting a download site. Have you looked at CNET losses over the last 4 quarters. I suggest that you do.