Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

RANT: High Software Prices!

<< < (16/22) > >>

Nudel:
In other words, imagine the case of photoshop.  Ideally, as long as they don't have to provide you with support, they aren't negatively effected if 30,000 high schoolers have pirated copies of photoshop and learn how to use it.  In fact it helps them by establishing a more dominant user base and trained users who may eventually buy the program.  But they can't "officially" give out those copies of photoshop or charge $5 for them, because they need to be able to charge the pros $500 for it.-mouser
--- End quote ---
Although it may have been one bloke who thought of this on his own, and not Adobe's company policy or whatever, I have heard a story about an Adobe trainer going to a university media course to show people how to use Adobe's stuff who also showed them where to get pirate copies. (I heard this from a friend who was in the training session. I've heard similar stories second hand, too.) Clearly it is in Adobe's interests for people who can't afford their stuff to use it anyway and they seem aware of it. (As are Microsoft judging by their recent quote.)

Ignoring Adobe's interests, though, I think that if you can't afford Photoshop then you should use something else. Use something free if you want or buy something cheap. Hopefully by supporting the cheaper products they will get better and better, which is good for everyone (except Adobe).

That said, I can afford Photoshop and the last time I checked (which was many years ago) all of the alternatives were horrible. I don't like having warez on my machine now that I'm a working man rather than a kid/student with no money, so I still bought Photoshop.

That brings up another idea: Should software should be free for kids and students? I don't know how they would prove their age/status or how it would be enforced, nor what would happen when they grew up and all their programs became illegal (maybe they could keep them but upgrades would cost full price). I just remember being a kid who couldn't afford to buy everything but still loved playing around with computers and powerful software. I guess there's more free/open-source stuff for kids to mess around with now, and they've got the free time to really get into that stuff, so maybe things are different to when I was growing up.

If kids should get free/cheap software, should poor people? Should software cost a percentage of your income? Heh. Actually, why is this question even about software and not about products and prices in general? If only money more accurately reflected what a person deserves.

Over the last nine years, since I graduated, pretty much everyone I've worked with has been fairly well off. Not talking in particular about where I'm working right now (although it has happened once or twice there, too), but it really bugs me when I hear people boasting in the office about how they've got a pirate copy of XYZ or modded their console so they can download games or whatever. These people could buy all of that stuff legitimately without any lifestyle hit whatsoever and it's made even worse by the fact that we're all writing/supporting software for a living just like those they're ripping off. (Nobody can pirate the software I/we write at work because it's custom software that's only of use to our company. I'm guessing people's attitudes to piracy would be different if we were working for a commercial software house.)

It's like people forget why they're nicking stuff and, once they're able to afford to buy things properly, they don't realise it's time to change their ways and support the people who make the software/games they use and enjoy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anti-pirate nazi who would shop his mother to FAST or FACT or ACT or FAT FIST F**ERS or whatever they're called now; it just offends me that well-off people can be so proud about gratuitously ripping off fellow software developers. Sure, I modded my own Xbox for music/video playback in the lounge -- XBMC rocks -- and, even though I thought I wouldn't, I ended up downloading a couple of games since it was so easy and there were some I wanted to try but wasn't sure enough about to buy. In the end I never got around to even trying most of the stuff I downloaded. Not surprising since I wasn't *that* interested in those titles, by definition. The things that I tried and liked I bought, though, just like I bought Doom 3 for the PC even though I had already finished a pirate copy of the game two weeks before its UK release. (There was no way I was going to hold off downloading a copy when everyone in the USA was talking about it but fair was fair and Id/Activision still got my money.)

How would you account for Linux then? What about Gimp, Open Office, Azureus, Utorrent?-Nosh
--- End quote ---
Azureus and Utorrent aren't big/complex enough to be sold commercially, IMO, especially with so many other good, free and almost identical programs for doing the same job.

Open Office is one of the examples of what I mentioned where a free/open program was created and funded by a company with an agenda. (In this case, Sun, wanting to eat into Microsoft's Office market share. Sure, people can now contribute changes but the suite wouldn't exist at all if Sun hadn't paid full-time people to write Star Office.)

Linux and The Gimp are indeed examples of complex, powerful free software from an open-source model, where (as far as I know) lots of people have managed to collaborate and be organised enough to build something that competes with commercial products (to some degree). There aren't many other examples, though, at least that I know of. Perhaps, with stuff like Ubuntu, Linux is even showing signs that it has people willing to turn a large, powerful open-source product into something user-friendly and polished. I don't personally like The Gimp but maybe it's another example (I'm not familiar enough with it to have a fair opinion, I just found it a bit weird, not just compared to Photoshop but compared to what I expect from a GUI app on Windows).

My point wasn't that it never happens but that it's rare and I don't see any signs that it's going to become so common that commercial software ceases to exist. For a complex program to be polished and commercial quality someone usually has to get paid to do the boring stuff, if not just because it's boring then because it takes a lot of time and effort which people don't have if they're busy doing something else to earn a living. Polish needs consistency and it's difficult for lots of people contributing small individual efforts to pull it off. Linux is now popular enough that, to use a bad analogy, so much shit's being thrown at it that the good bits will stick (even if it takes years and years to happen), plus lots of people are paid to work on Linux full-time by companies that make money from Linux in other ways. I might be wrong but I think Linux is pretty unique example.

Of course, it goes without saying that commercial software isn't necessarily good, powerful or polished. One example proves this all by itself: <SPIT> Lotus Notes <SPIT>

zridling:
[Nudel]: Open Office is one of the examples of what I mentioned where a free/open program was created and funded by a company with an agenda. (In this case, Sun, wanting to eat into Microsoft's Office market share. Sure, people can now contribute changes but the suite wouldn't exist at all if Sun hadn't paid full-time people to write Star Office.)
________________________________________________
Not sure where you got this. First, Microsoft gave Sun $150 million and then another $1.6 billion just to use Java in Windows, among other patents from 2002-04. Second, StarOffice could never threaten MS Office since its open source replicate, OpenOffice is far more prevalent on desktops than StarOffice. Third, Sun didn't create StarOffice, they bought the company and re-engineered a good bit of the code through most of the 1990s.

Nudel, you seem to have a hostility toward open source software. Is there a reason why? Is it because of open standards (e.g,. OASIS OpenDocument (ODF) format) perhaps? which:

* Promote interoperability among products made by different vendors and software providers.

* Drive competition in the marketplace thereby increasing product innovation and quality while lowering prices.

* Provide customers with a greater choice of applications and providers.

* Level the playing field, giving no clear advantage to any player unless they happen to provide a superior product at a lower cost, regardless of their current marketshare.
Clearly no one would possibly want any of these things!  :huh: While I agree many open source apps lack the polish of an Adobe app, but understand that most open source software is targeted to do one (or a few) thing really well and just work. Function takes priority over form. Linux distros like Ubuntu, Freespire, Xandros, and Fedora Core have overcome this for the most part. OpenOffice might not exist without Sun releasing it under the GPL, but StarOffice would. As you suggest, instead of people proudly ripping off big commercial software despite the issue of affordability, it's better instead to [conscientiously] use an open source alternative.

Nudel:
First, Microsoft gave Sun $150 million and then another $1.6 billion just to use Java in Windows, among other patents from 2002-04.-zridling (April 22, 2007, 01:10 AM)
--- End quote ---
What on earth has that got to do with OpenOffice?

Second, StarOffice could never threaten MS Office since its open source replicate-zridling
--- End quote ---
Why does it being open source mean it cannot threaten MS Office? Firefox threatens Internet Explorer and it is open source. Being open or closed source doesn't have a large effect on success, IMO; having a full-time team of developers is the most important thing. What I've been saying through this thread is that very few free products have full-time development teams and those that do tend to be funded by a company with an agenda. Agendas are not necessarily bad. I'm just saying that it is rare for a company to want to make money by giving something substantial away and your FireFoxes and OpenOffices (and Internet Explorers) are the exceptions, not the rules.

OpenOffice is far more prevalent on desktops than StarOffice.-zridling
--- End quote ---
You are aware that OpenOffice is based on StarOffice, right? My point was that OpenOffice would not exist had Sun not funded the development of StarOffice. Nothing more, nothing less.

Third, Sun didn't create StarOffice, they bought the company and re-engineered a good bit of the code through most of the 1990s.-zridling
--- End quote ---
True, but it's also true that StarOffice was closed-source and proprietary before Sun bought it, and the company that made it, in 1999. My point still stands: It is rare for an open-source and free product to be  large, complex and polished, and when one is it is almost always because it has been funded by a company with an agenda.

From Wikipedia:
OpenOffice.org is based on StarOffice, an office suite developed by StarDivision and acquired by Sun Microsystems in August 1999. The source code of the suite was released in July 2000 with the aim of reducing the dominant market share of Microsoft Office by providing a free, open and high-quality alternative. OpenOffice.org is free software, available under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).


Nudel, you seem to have a hostility toward open source software. Is there a reason why?-zridling
--- End quote ---
I have no hostility whatsoever towards open source software as a concept. If I appear to then you've got me wrong. I write my own open-source software in my spare time so it would be very odd for me to be against it.

My point is purely that open-source and/or free software is unlikely to ever replace commercial software in general because of the reasons I've already argued.

OSS/free software compliments commercial software. There are loads of great open and/or free utilities that I wouldn't want to be without but we all (in general) still need the big, complex, powerful and (if anyone beyond die-hard geeks is going to use them) polished products as well as those things. Yes, there are some open/free products which fit those criteria, but they are exceptions and I don't think that will become the rule because you need to pay people to work on things full-time to get those things.

Is it because of open standards (e.g,. OASIS OpenDocument (ODF) format) perhaps?-zridling
--- End quote ---
WTF would I be against open standards? You're putting words in my mouth and going off on a tangent based on completely wild assumption. Stop it.

FYI, I ***HATE*** the fact that MS Office uses closed file formats. Have you any idea how much of my life I have spent trying to create a reliable viewer for Office formats? In fact, I hate MS Office in general. I think it's a badly written pile of crap that should be scrapped and started again from scratch. (Don't get me wrong. Office is great for general users but when it's your day-job to write code which interacts with Office, or your hobby to write things which try to view office files outside of office, you will quickly learn to despise it. On top of that, Office is responsible for Variants and Visual Basic in general, two crimes against computer science in my book. No, I do not like MS Office at all.

While I agree many open source apps lack the polish of an Adobe app, but understand that most open source software is targeted to do one (or a few) thing really well and just work.-zridling
--- End quote ---
That's along the lines of what I am trying to say!

OpenOffice might not exist without Sun releasing it under the GPL, but StarOffice would.-zridling
--- End quote ---
Witout Sun releasing it under the GPL it wouldn't even be part of this discussion for completely obvious reasons.

As you suggest, instead of people proudly ripping off big commercial software despite the issue of affordability, it's better instead to [conscientiously] use an open source alternative.-zridling
--- End quote ---
I agree, where there is a reasonable alternative. For many things there still isn't.

nosh:
My point wasn't that it never happens but that it's rare and I don't see any signs that it's going to become so common that commercial software ceases to exist.
--- End quote ---

You seem to have substantially changed your stand now. Either you're extremely naive or you're simply in denial if you think good freeware that does more than one or two things is a rare commodity. I could give you a list of top notch freeware apps on my system that are as good as or better than any commercially available software.

Azureus and Utorrent are damn good programs that perform complex tasks and perform them well. They are not too simple to be sold commercially. That category of software is already dominated by freeware and commercial stuff doesn't even stand a chance. I can see a lot of people shelling out good money for sturdy P2P clients had they not already been free. The same story is repeated in the web browser category.

I wouldn't categorize Firefox as a simple software that just does one or two things either, it's the most used app on a lot of PCs.

Go to any freeware site and you'll see tons of apps in any given category. At least a bunch of these are going to give commercial ware a tough time in the future! 

I'm sure a lot of folks on this forum will be able to mention great free IDEs that they use for developement. Is a program that compiles code and creates executables a simple app by your definition? No? Is it just another exception then? Wait a sec! We're seeing quite a few exceptions here... maybe it's the rule rather than the exception.   

There will always be commercially available software in the foreseeable future but there will also be a strong free alternative hot on its tail. The only way commercial software can stay ahead is to steadily improve in quality or to slash their prices. I see the technology/quality gap narrowing so there's only one way for the prices to go. 

Renegade:
1. Too many really good posts here to respond to.

2. Limited time - must keep short.

3. I want to address fairness and compassion.

This discussion about photoshop has got me thinking more about some of my feelings on these high end programs.  I sometimes work with academic software, which has similar insane pricing schemes (go price matlabl).

Part of what makes people turn to piracy is when a company prices its products for one rich market, and prices it out of range of normal people, for the sole purpose of keeping the people who can afford it from paying less.

In other words, imagine the case of photoshop.  Ideally, as long as they don't have to provide you with support, they aren't negatively effected if 30,000 high schoolers have pirated copies of photoshop and learn how to use it.  In fact it helps them by establishing a more dominant user base and trained users who may eventually buy the program.  But they can't "officially" give out those copies of photoshop or charge $5 for them, because they need to be able to charge the pros $500 for it.  So we are left in this strange situation where companies are officially fighting to keep the program out of the hands of people who can't afford it, just so they can extract high dollars out of the people who can.  This is the kind of thing that makes me long for the day when we can all pay what we think a program is worth to us (i know it's not going to happen im just saying).

in general i guess i evaluate companies and get a feeling for if i think they are trying to jack up their prices and update charges in order to maximize profits with no real "love" of their customers.  i want to support companies which balance making a profit with having happy users.  show me a company trying to bleed their users dry to squeeze the last drop of potential profits, and i'll show you a company whose users are looking for an excuse to jump ship.
-mouser (April 18, 2007, 10:02 AM)
--- End quote ---

If anyone is interested, go have a read on the licenses that I write. I believe that they are pretty much what mouser is writing about there (in a round about way). Fairness. Upgrades are free as well (as long as it's possible to do so). http://renegademinds.com - my personal site, and http://www.altools.net - the dayjob. Software should be available and easy. As developers (and software marketers) it's our duty to serve our customers and users.

To sell software to an American and then sell it to someone living in China... Well... I need to charge Americans more. I also need to charge the Chinese less.

If you don't agree with me... you. When you make $100 per month, it's not easy to spend $50 on software. When you make $4000 per month, it's a lot easier to spend $50.

Not everyone has a car. Not everyone has all the perks that so many of us in the developed world have. To ask that someone that makes what I spit on for a piece of software is just cruel. It's called having some sense of generosity and compassion.

At the moment our ability to respond to these issues (as software manufacturers) is limited, and only the larger manufacturers really have the means to do so (this is a major problem facing software authors and not easily addressed - that's another discussion entirely). But to begrudge someone that lives in poverty and is fortunate enough to actually HAVE A COMPUTER is just cruel.

Stealing is wrong. Piracy is stealing. Piracy is wrong. If you can't afford it, don't buy it and don't steal it. If you can't afford Photoshop, use the Gimp. If you can't afford Windows, use Linux. Period.-tinjaw (April 19, 2007, 09:15 AM)
--- End quote ---

I'm not really buying this line of reasoning across the board.

Pricing is situational. Just around the corner from my house I see Mercedez cars, BMWs, and Bentleys. These people can afford to pay for software. I can also travel a few hours from where I live and see people in complete and total squallor with literally nothing. If they "steal" from me, my cost is virtually nothing.

I have SO MUCH compared to so many people and for me to begrudge them an amount of money that I literally wipe my ass with is just purely greedy and inhuman. For me to be so selfish that I actually care about what I routinely waste?

Give me a break.

We're talking about software here. The cost for me to get my products to these people is virtually nothing.

How can I possibly begin to accuse people of theft there?

It's got to do with a matter of scale and resources. On my resource scale I can spend $50 and not bat an eye. For some people, that's a weeks wages! (Ahem... Like mouser said... WHAT IS IT WORTH TO YOU!)

Now... If you live in a developed country, then there's no excuse. You can afford my prices and what I'm asking for my software. If you're stealing, then you're stealing. Period. Agreed there.

This is a complex issue and there are real problems in solving it.

But it's just not right for us as software authors in the developed world to complain about fractions of a cent. That's being miserly and greedy in a very obscene and (almost) evil way.

I am not condoning Adobe's behaviour. I am not endorsing any particular licensing scheme. I am endorsing being compassionate and fair to PEOPLE.

Ok - Rant over. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page