Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Don't be a free user?
Jabberwock:
How times have changed!
If the users get Thingamajig Suite for free up to version 4.12 and then they don't get 4.13 (or 5), they are "screwed"? Even though 4.12 is perfectly usable and useful (in spite of little quirks and bugs)?
It is interesting to note how the focus has shifted from the product itself to the development (or support, if you may) of the product. Back in the old days (ekhm, ekhm) you got the floppies and that was it - that was the final product of the developers' minds. To get any improvement you had to wait three years for the next version, if any... Nowadays, if you find a perfect freeware gem and you see it has not been updated in nine months, you don't bother to download it...
It is good that now people know the difference between initial cost and TCO, but let's find some balance here... There are projects which require intensive maintenance and there are those which do not. Naturally, if I move all my contacts and photos and blog intensely on the new social networking site and it suddenly disappears from the face of the Earth, I have every reason to be irritated - here my time investment was so high that the fact the the initial cost was insubstantial (i.e. zero) is not that important any more. On the other hand, if I get this little puzzle game, I can play it all night long and more, even though the authors have long moved to more lucrative ventures...
Edit: I've just read through the blog entry to the end and it is clear the author is putting free webservices in opposition to free software. In that case, disregard the above.
TaoPhoenix:
Sorry, I'll still disagree with the post.
I think the elephant in the room is tied up here with Intellectual Property games. If the products and services are Open Sourced then when an initial developer gets bored, someone else can jump in.
Of course the "cloud" is the new hotness, but the brisk downside of the "cloud" is exactly these end of life situations. When there's a "product"/software involved, apparently they call them "solutions" now. But if that piece is open sourced, then someone can carry the torch.
What the rise of free services has done is to make Paid ones have to work harder to justify money. To use a newspaper model, "stories" consisting of 250 word reprinted AP releases don't cut it anymore.
(Hoping I don't botch this next part) most of the apps here don't target the "$19.95 Shareware" target. That's why "uncreative" shareware sellers exuded sleaziness, because it was like the vitamin game of selling per mineral, for all of the 40 you need. The stuff here ("most of it") is rightfully measured in pennies or a couple of dollars. The value perception is the same. They're cutely useful, like a yummy ballgame hotdog. So try them all, then the one that hits your sweet spot is the one that inspires you to make your donation.
So, I rate the initial post a C.
40hz:
Once again some valid points used to arrive at questionable and overly broad conclusions. And like many bloggers, he makes assertions which he seems to equate with establishing proofs. Oh well...
Hmm... On re-reading the blog post a third time, I couldn't help but notice this at the bottom:
Like a service? Make them charge you or show you ads. If they won't do it, clone them and do it yourself. Soon you'll be the only game in town!
DISCLAIMER: I run a paid bookmarking site. Every morning I wake up and dive into my vault of golden coins.
—maciej on December 06, 2011
--- End quote ---
Not exactly someone who is speaking without an underlying agenda. :-\
To avoid this problem, avoid mom-and-pop projects that don't take your money!
--- End quote ---
Or get your sh!t out of the "cloud", and stick to Free Software that you contribute to.
Ehtyar.
-Ehtyar (December 15, 2011, 12:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
+1! Yes indeedy-dee! :Thmbsup:
I think one thing that blogger either missed (or doesn't get) is that not everybody who does "free software" needs to make a living off of it. There are even some who don't want to make a living off it. Like many musicians, writers, performers, and artists - for some software developers, it's purely a matter of art, personal esthetics, having some fun, and the desire to create something.
Most of these people make it a point to secure their living expenses elsewhere or by other means in order to be completely free in their creative endeavors.
There's nothing to say you must always try to integrate your avocation with your vocation. Most times it's a futile exercise trying to do so.
One of the finest acoustic guitar makers I ever met approaches it that way. He's a very successful gent working in a field totally unrelated to music. But when it comes to guitars, his sole goal is to create the finest instruments ever built - and to get them into the hands of the finest players he can. He's created and sold commissioned instruments for some of the most respected names imaginable. And he's also given some away to will-be greats.
He tries to break even on his expenses - or possibly make a little money with the instruments he sells. But all monies earned go right back into his research and craft. He said that if he tried to make a living off it, he would never be able to do what he does. But since he's free of any financial inducement, he can follow his own weird when it comes to design, craftsmanship, and the projects he'll take on. As he said: I'm in my early 60s. I want as much of what time I've got left to be used doing something I consider important.
He's an unbelievably happy guy. Doing something he wants to do in a way that makes a difference for something he cares deeply about. I admire him.
I've run into software developers and many computer geeks who feel much like he does. And who follow his strategy of detaching the process of earning income from their 'real' life.
I should know. I'm one of them. ;D
wraith808:
+1 for that blog post.
-Renegade (December 15, 2011, 02:05 AM)
--- End quote ---
Agreed.
To avoid this problem, avoid mom-and-pop projects that don't take your money!
--- End quote ---
Or get your sh!t out of the "cloud", and stick to Free Software that you contribute to.
-Ehtyar (December 15, 2011, 12:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
+1! Yes indeedy-dee! :Thmbsup:
-40hz (December 15, 2011, 12:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
But then... it really isn't free... yes, it says free, but contributions are what keep it sustainable. Whether its time or money or some other intangible or tangible, its still goods for something. TANSTAAFL. But some people think there is, and that's a drain. Maybe not unsustainable in the long run if it doesn't overwhelm those that do contribute, but still...
40hz:
But then... it really isn't free... yes, it says free, but contributions are what keep it sustainable.
-wraith808 (December 15, 2011, 12:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think the point I was trying to make was I objected to what I see as his argument that unless you're driven by monetary concerns from the get-go, you project is destined to failure.
As I said in my above post, that's only a showstopper for somebody who needs to make a living off of the thing they're doing.
And while it's true that most free software isn't truly 'free' in the absolute sense, in practice it often is. Most FOSS projects go on for years and numerous revisions with little or no financial contributions - despite the fact they're often asked for.
Many people have no idea just how powerful a force volunteerism is. But most of them never volunteer for anything anyway. So it doesn't really matter if they can't see it.
Life - and creative endeavors and development - goes on. ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version