On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 09:11:39AM +0200, Octavian Rasnita wrote: > I read it, but it is limited to only a kind of software > business. Those who create text editors like UltraEdit, TextPad > or others and sell their product are in another type of > software business because they offer a 1-time deal and get some > money. That's all. And there are many other business of the > same type. Not everyone sells to permanent customers or B2B. > Some create simple programs for the public.
The public generally cannot afford to spend $50 - 200 - 2000 on every piece of software that they could benefit from. They have other expenses, like rent! The value they get from the software is usually superficial. Entertainment, maybe, or convenience. It probably won't earn or save much money for most people, and what it does is usually not visible to them. Hence, the average consumer is heavy into "piracy". They don't even question the morals of it. Not because they're immoral people, but because they just can't afford the ridiculous licensing fees for everything (and practically speaking not every illegitimate copy is a lost sale). It makes much better sense to charge licensing fees to organizations that will be making (or saving) money with your software, and give the software away to personal users for free. Mostly though, it makes better sense to charge for the development and support of the software instead of licensing it. The reality is that investing in closed source software is a bad investment. You don't have any control over it, you can't know if it leaves you vulnerable to attacks, and you can't make it better. It makes good sense for everyone to invest in open source development instead. Espeically organizations that have money to spend on software anyway. It makes sense that they get their money's worth. The thing is that an organization that needs software to do their business doesn't need to sell that software. The software serves a purpose and that is where the value comes from. It does no harm to them to share it with others (arguably it might harm them by putting competitors on equal ground, but in most sectors I doubt software plays a major role in competition anyway). In fact, it's better for them because others will invest in it also, making it ultimately better for everyone. Proprietary software is a very expensive business model (for everyone). It discourages innovation and encourages vendor lock-in. Everybody has to reinvent the square wheel because the existing square wheels are protected by law. What makes companies like Microsoft rich isn't developing good products. It is cornering the market and caging it with vendor lock-in. Their business practices have been called into question on several occasions, and laws have been passed to try to force them to play fair. You need an operating system to transform a computer from an overpriced paperweight into a useful machine. They secured a monopoly on IBM PC hardware early and do everything in their power to keep it. It is slipping now thanks to free[1] software. Good for Microsoft is bad for everyone else. In general developing software with the hopes to sell it later is a poor business model, I think. The users didn't have any say in how it was designed so it will probably not fit their needs well[2]. It's also a gamble for the developers because they don't know if the software will really be sufficiently useful to anyone[2]. It makes better sense to secure a contract beforehand and design the software according to the needs of those funding it. They will get exactly what they need, your developers and business will get paid for certain, and nobody is getting shafted by the deal (hopefully). Most software that is written isn't ground-breaking. It's just reinventing the square wheel over and over again. If those square wheels are free[1] software then you can take the already square wheel and smooth it instead. [1] As in freedom. [2] *cough* Windows 8. Regards, -- Brandon McCaig <bamcc...@gmail.com> <bamcc...@castopulence.org> Castopulence Software <https://www.castopulence.org/> Blog <http://www.bamccaig.com/> perl -E '$_=q{V zrna gur orfg jvgu jung V fnl. }. q{Vg qbrfa'\''g nyjnlf fbhaq gung jnl.}; tr/A-Ma-mN-Zn-z/N-Zn-zA-Ma-m/;say'
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
