On Thursday, 11 April 2002 02:16:56 +0530, Frederick Noronha wrote: > * As things stands today, in a country like India, the overwhelming bulk > of citizens can't afford software prices. ....... > This includes a > significant chunk the 200-300 million middle class which we often talk > about, as an example of India's purchasing power. If these people don't > have the economic freedom to utilise software, You seem to miss the point again. The free software foundation or some volunteers developing free software are not the only people who can provide low cost or no cost software. The large software companies can do it and they can do it better, but they don't give users freedom. Their goal to to get the users addicted to their software, so that they can't change in future, when the price goes up.
For an MNC, giving a few products away for no cost is not a big issue at all. They already have more than enough international corporate customers and service contracts to sustain and grow their business. They can easily afford to lower or remove the price for some of their their products for a few years, and thus nullify the low cost/no cost claims of free software. > what 'freedom' are we talking about? Is the software professional's > "freedom" necessarily opposed to the "freedom" of the user? Both are equally important, but (I am repeating), * NEITHER the user NOR the developer gets "Freedom" from proprietary software. * Proprietary software can easily be cheaper than free software. The assumption that starving free software developers is the ONLY reason for not mentioning the low cost/ no cost of free software is not correct. It is just one of the reasons. An equally important reason is that the low cost/ no cost feature of free software can easily be proved to be a MYTH by proprietary software companies. > It seems we've gone too far down the road with this (once-valid) unstated > assumption that computer owners must be rich, and therefore they *should* > be able to pay almost-extortionate prices for even home-user > software. There are many schemes in other countries, where home users are given a computer with enough software (non free) for no cost. The only obligation is these schemes is that the users should subscribe to some online service from some company. Such schemes can come in many different varieties, many of which will be suitable for a country like India. Such a deal will take away freedom from the user, but the user doesn't loose much money. So we can't get much far by claiming no cost/low cost. It is not about starving developers. It is about the middle class and any one else who wishes to develop or use general purpose software. > * Costs is the most significant factor in a price-sensitive market > like India, and, I guess, for large segments of the Third World. But free software don't have a provable advantage here. So its significance is null and void in our context. > least I still do!) Didn't Nirma detergent or Amul Pizza become such a big > hit because of the marketing-model they choose: low-price, > high-turnover? True, but unlike pizza or detergent, software vendors can afford to play the low cost game. The same strategy won't win in the case of software. > > In doing so, in fact, such firms widening the market to include those who > would never, for example, ever think of buying a pizza. By giving Internet explorer free, and reducing cost of windows, the concerned company can widen their market to include people who would never, for example, ever think of using word (most people don't need such a powerful word processor for preparing any document). > If our markets are so price-sensitive, are we doing the right thing by > overlooking this reality. No, but as I mentioned above, we are not in a position to get any advantage of this factor. > From another perspective, wouldn't the very nature of *free software* > (being open in design and 'free' in replicability) result in the pulling > down of costs? I am not sure how this will happen. Could you please explain? > Should we presume just because someone pays less for the initial product, > our own potential for earnings would necessarily drop? The point is, we are not the only ones who can think otherwise. The proprietary vendors can also understand that just because someone pays less for the initial product, their own potential for earnings would *NOT* necessarily drop. And they can afford to be aggressive. > aren't we walking into the Microsoft logic? This company (and all such companies) have efficient managers who know how to tackle all sorts of markets. > I'm not suggesting everyone on this list opts for the life of being a > *sanyasi* or a hermit. Professionals will continue to be professionals, > and will continue to charge for the value-added services they > provide. Proprietary software companies are already doing this for many years. There is nothing new in this. > If people can't afford to pay at what have now become standard software > prices -- and price is a big issue for most of the people, in much of the > Third World -- can't we point them to this solution? For this particular problem, low cost or no cost non-free software can also be projected as a solution. Where is the advantage for free software in this? > > Fears that once people get used to 'free' or low-cost > (pricewise) software, they won't be willing to pay... are only > fears. The non-free software vendors also know this. Where is the advantage for free software? All other factors being same (free software may be in a worse state in some cases) Freedom IS the ONLY advantage that can get free software any where, in a any kind of market (rich or poor). bye, pappu. _______________________________________________ Fsf-india mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-india