Hi, On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:26:03AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Dienstag, 22. September 2009 03:15:34 schrieb > [email protected]:
> > > The means they use is to provide a Pro version which offers > > > improved performance by some changes which everyone could do > > > himself in the sources. > > > > Err... I don't quite get it. So is it free software what they sell? > > Do they provide the modified sources? > > Jupp - it's just that nobody takes the trouble of compiling those. They wouldn't even need to compile -- just find someone who already has a copy of the binary, and is willing to pass it on... > All that "Pro Version" stuff is in my view just a very neat marketing > stunt - and they make very good money from it. Yeah, interesting business model: sell copies of a binary to people who don't understand that they could get it at no cost elsewhere... ;-) I have some doubts though that this model is sustainable in the long term :-) And what does "good money" really mean in this case anyways? I'm not inclined to believe that the revenue is large enough to pay any serious development... > Giving people prebuilt binaries and an automatic update service can be > quite a nice deal. Well, that's essentially the RedHat model; but there is one more important ingredient to it: trademarks. While the actual software in RHEL is free, the RetHat trademark prevents direct redistribution of binaries on a larger scale -- rather, projects like CentOS have to recompile everything after removing the trademark. RHEL is sold with support contracts; but I think what makes customers willing to buy these is not so much the support, but rather tha branding... This model is acceptable from a free software standpoint, as it doesn't seriously limit the freedom of actual users. Yet it's not exactly the prime example of free software business models: just like the traditional proprietary model, it is centered around creating a "product", and then getting individual customers to pay for each copy -- only that scarcity is not created by demanding licenses for use of the software itself, but by the branding attached to the "official" copies... In a true free software economy, no artificial scarcity need to be created at all. Customers do not pay for the ability to use particular "products" (not even indirectly through branding), but rather for the further development of the software. Developers charge for the actual work being done -- and once payed, the availability of the results doesn't need to be restricted. > > > You won't be able to create a self-running money machine, though. > > > > Very few people manage to do that with proprietary software. So few > > in fact that it's insiginifcant. I don't think it's even appropriate > > to mention it in this context... It's just not true that people > > writing proprietary software get richer than those writing free > > software. > > Maybe my view is bent by M$ - and Apple (proprietary GUI). These are > the ones I mostly see as making big money (with products for regular > people). My point is that the proprietary software developers at Microsoft and Apple do not really make more money than free software developers at RedHat and Intel, or the custom software developers at CSC... The people who earn a lot for money with Microsoft or Apple, are a handful of investors and managers -- they get a lot of money for building and running a company, not for developing software. Actual software development almost always happens on a regular salary. The idea some people seem to have that developing proprietary software is a way to get rich, is just totally detached from reality. -antrik-
