Always an interesting debate. There are those who take the moral high ground and say with great authority how wrong it is. Then there are those in the middle who I feel are much more accurate in their standing and then there are those who just leech everything and ultimately do cost the developer money. I am in the middle ground. I have software I have paid for and I have software I am evaluating. The trouble is, that the software is too expensive in the first place. Developers argue that they have to price it high to combat the piracy, yet give away hundreds of copies in order to get the software into the mainstream in the first place. I evaluate software. If I like it and it is within my budget then I will buy it. The other thing for us in the UK to combat is that the software costs up to 50% more over here. For example Cubase new version top of the line whatever it is called costs close to £500. That's $870. Would I pay that for a glorified software sequencer. Not on your life. Their argument is that in order to make a profit, they must sell at that price. But the price limits sales. Selling 100 at $1 margin is the same as selling 50 at $2 margin. More people would buy it if the cost was lower, that's a fact. If the program is good, the more people that use it, generates more sales by recommendation. Thats another fact. You better believe they make tons of profit from this software. They are of course entitled too. That's what business is all about. But if they make excessive profits on something, that should be reflected in a much cheaper upgrade path. For example, my last company almost got into real trouble just keeping up to speed with software upgrades. We ran a 20 strong pre press department. Pre press means you need to have the latest version of all the graphics software just to make sure you can meet your customers demands. In one year alone, Quark Express updates on 12 Macs cost £7,600 ($13,200). Thats just one program!! In order to keep everything legal, we purchased all the upgrades for all the macs. We could have just purhased 6 and doubled them up, but no we did the right thing. Well doing the right thing cost jobs as a downturn in work meant we had to sacrifice people. Saving on the $100,000 softare bill would have saved jobs. So all you developers can cry and weep all you want. Reduce the cost, increase the sales and pile those excessive profits into a far cheaper upgrade path and all in the world will be well again. Rant over. V
Message
The free software debate
2003-12-11 by nuvalerium
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.
