On 2006-09-05, billwg <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Software has value based on what it is worth to a user. The
> incremental cost of a copy is essentially zero compared to that value.
Yup, and that's why open source works so well. People can pay for
software based on use-value rather than sale-value. The *vast* majority
of software on the planet is developed "in-house", never intended for
commercial sale as it is.
> All of these users obtain the software voluntarily and pay willingly
> because they see the benefits that accrue from its use.
Only in a tiny subset of areas is the sale model workable, and many of
them are eroding since the historical constraints are loosening.
Operating systems, for example.
> The very fact that the COLA folk here harp so on price is an indication
> that they see no value.
Certainly in most areas I don't see any value in Windows beyond that of
Linux. I think games will probably always be commercial and sale-based,
along with much other media, but the basic infrastructure like the
operating system? Nah, it can't last.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
'[W]e want a slate of projects that will out-dumb the dumb shows
like Whoopi, The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, and The Next
Joe Millionaire.' ABC's pilot orders for Fall 2004 include The
Naked Ladies, Extreme Explosions, and America's Shiniest Objects.
- The Onion
|
|
