On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:16:27 +1300 Carl Cerecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, one very important factor was that everybody treated (and most > still treat) software as a *product*. It isn't really a product, because > it isn't produced. Sure, it's created - but that's a one-off cost. After > that media duplication and distribution is very small. (There's > marketing to be thrown into the mix to complicate things a bit too) support is the one thing left out of this analysis. Support is expensive. Not many do it well. Its also a reason why some open source products die. Those who know it best get sick of getting email 24/7 asking questions, silly & otherwise. of course with open source theoretically anyone can read the source and take up the support role. Undertsanding someone elses source is another thing! >If > the selling price is large in comparison to this cost, then, once the > cost of creation has been covered, the profit margin is ludicrously high > compared to a real product like, say, a loaf of bread. > > It is for this reason that free/open source software exists - the > creation cost of the software is covered by the goodwill of the > programmer(s), and the distribution is done at no cost over the > internet. You've still got marketing in there, but that's usually > word-of-mouth (or the equivalent internet saying). > > This is also the reason that RIAA and MPAA are having fits. In fact, any > information (books, movies, music etc.) only have one major cost: > creation. After that, worldwide distribution can be comparatively cheap > because of the internet. This is why the organisations that currently > control distribution of information (and make a lot of money from it) > are upset. > > This has rambled on a bit long. Sorry. > > Cheers, > Carl. -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
