Why do the masses not care about software licenses?

Before being published on our server, programs undergo
strict selection and testing. My virtual machine is
fantastically bloated with an excessive number of installed
programs. Most of these programs are useless, buggy
or simply uninteresting. This is true regardless of whether
the software is paid or free. My experience shows that
a program's license has no impact on its popularity.
Although theological debates among supporters of free
and open-source software argue otherwise, the truth is much
simpler and more prosaic.
A program's popularity is determined by the specific
preferences of users. This is why Total Commander
is so popular while dozens of free alternatives are not.
This is also why 7Zip is popular and many paid archivers are
not. This explains why the simple task manager AnVir
captured Windows XP machines, or why the paid Aquarium
screensaver was on every secretary's computer in 2004,
despite the existence of thousands of similar programs. The
truth is that user affection must be earned, and this has
nothing to do with licensing. For example, the iconic
graphic editor Gimp in the Linux community has not found a
following among Windows users. Why? One could argue that
users of cracked software are criminals. However, in
reality, do not look for malicious intent where everything
can be explained by simple laziness. The end consumer is
generally indifferent to the theological debates of Freeware
and Open Source. Consumers use what is convenient for them,
regardless of the mystical cult-like claims of various
software developer sects. For someone to crack your paid
program, it must be earned. Cracking a program is primarily
a recognition of its value. You would be surprised at how
many paid programs have not been cracked. But not because
they were very well protected. No. They were simply so
useless and had such an inadequate price that almost no one
purchased them. Such programs left no mark in the history of
IT technologies. Often, this situation arises from
convoluted methods of entering or acquiring licenses. It is
easier for a user to download a cracked portable version of
such a program than to spend time and nerves on acquiring
and installing a license. Such licenses usually required
reactivation upon reinstalling Windows. Therefore, even in
cracked form, such programs turned out to be extremely
unpopular. For example, the forgotten Cristall Office.
Experience shows that it was installed only to be replaced
with something else later. Sometimes, the distribution of
cracked versions of a program is handled by the developers
themselves. This is a very cunning but important marketing
move. The more people use such a program, the more people
learn about it. Consequently, even more people will buy
corporate rather than regular licenses, which is much more
profitable. Another aspect of users indifference to software
licenses is the developers' self-importance. Even with
feedback from customers, not all developers take their
consumers' needs into account, continuing to replicate
annoying or problematic elements from version to version.
Thus, a consensus has formed in many pirate forums regarding
certain utilities and packages. There is no point in paying
for licenses if developers will do what they want rather
than what the end user needs. If you do not share my
opinion, then look at office suites and applications, as
well as file formats. Despite the existence of the Open
Document format, it has not become popular. Despite the
availability of dozens of very good office suites for
Windows, people continue to use Microsoft Office like
zombies. The same applies to Photoshop; in reality, there
are dozens of more convenient and cheaper programs
available. I believe that end-user preferences are primarily
irrational. It is unclear why one would install Photoshop to
perform simple photo editing that is available through free
utilities or even online. The irrationality of consumers can
also be seen in the mass transition to the Chrome browser,
which steals user data, or in the refusal to recognize
planned obsolescence as a myth. Considering this, every
catalog or archive of programs that includes both paid
cracked and free software does one very important thing.
Such servers and websites level the playing field for the
end consumer, equalizing the accessibility of paid and free
programs. Only in such a toxic competitive environment can
we truly determine what is actually in demand and what is
not. Look at my previous post in Phlog. Almost all the
programs in the TOP 100 downloads were a surprise to me.
Study this list to better understand what interests people
and what does not. Life, as always, diverges from theories,
and this also applies to software licenses.