Do you think that free, as in no cost, software is good for developers
and the software market in general?

Even though many Open Source (OS) products are zero cost, this is not
intended as an OS debate.

My personal take on it is that free software is not necessarily a good
thing.

I used to be amazed at those providing free software. I used to think
those people were crazy and obviously had other, "real" jobs to put a
roof over their head. I was mostly ambivalent towards them and happy
to occasionally use the fruits of their labour.

However, in the last little while, I've decided that those people
really annoy me. While they may put no monetary value on their time,
the only significant resource required to create free software, I do.

What incentive is their for a software company or small developer to
pour resources (time=money) into creating a great product, only to have
some group of idealists create a free knock-off? There is no
innovation in copying someone else's work.

For the really big/complex software such as operating systems I suppose
commercial companies can still fight back by lowering the product
prices and then charging for great support, but small developers really
get screwed. In every software related newsgroup I frequent, any time
someone is posting for a solution, 99% of the time they stipulate that
they would "prefer" a free solution - And nowadays, they often get it.

I can think of no other industry where this happens. You would never
have a group of people providing free cars, houses, or food.

The idea of completely free software is somewhat flawed and, IMO, hurts
the software industry by stifling innovation and stunting the
creation/growth of solid and reliable software companies.

Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I just had a customer tell me
today that he thought one of my products was a "little" expensive
($1,500), especially considering some of the free alternatives out
there. Of course, not 20 minutes earlier, he was beaming about the
$400,000 they just dropped on a new machine for their assembly line
that will give them an edge over their competition.

Software gets no respect.

--
Kevin Powick

Do you view sofware as a product or a service (or both)?

"Kevin Powick" <nospam (AT) spamless (DOT) com> wrote

Kevin -

Sadly, this is true, however it is largely a case of semantics. In the
past, MV applications were sold with an up front cost, with the support
provided as a separate charge/contract. Because many applications (the
better ones) rarely broke, the customers stopped paying for support they did
not need - like canceling their flood insurance because they live on a
mountain. Then these same people were appalled to learn that their former
vendor was no longer around five years later when they really needed them.

Fast forward, we stopped selling support contracts and began requiring
license renewals instead, and BTW minimal support comes free with the
license renewal. Then if they don't pay, the software stops working - if
they need it (and they usually do) they will pay - if they don't need it
then they will stop paying.

For FREE software, you could ask the customer this:
- Do you believe that you, or anyone currently working for you could make
that free stuff actually work?
- If they say yes, then wish them luck and mention that you would be willing
to fix it later for them for say $3,000 or so.
- They might say, But you were going to charge me half that!
- To which you reply, Yes I am willing to implement a solution I know will
work for the price I quoted, and I will stand behind it (even guarantee it),
but you won't get that assurance from the Free Stuff!

So then it becomes a question of, do they really *need* what they ask
for -or- are they just trying to grind you down on price? I suspect the
later, point out to this customer that he isn't likely to put a minimum wage
punk in charge of his shiny new $400K machine either.

4 cents (or more)

BFaux

Kevin Powick wrote:
I've spent a bit of time thinking about this topic too. The OSS is
just one model for software that has free use for individuals or
organizations. Google software, such as gmail, groups, analytics, or
the planzo calendar I'm trying out is free to use without being open
source. The software industry often gives away software licenses as
loss leaders (IE, for example).

This isn't just an issue for those who build software, but also for
anyone who writes books. What is in a book related to computing right
now where the information is not available somewhere on the web?

How can an independent "builder" of software or IT information (e.g.
books) prepare a business plan that has a good chance of success? It
is essential they use a services, consulting model?

I don't think the idealists are necessarily the biggest concern in the
"software is free" approach, although academics (e.g. grad students)
certainly do contribute to this. A college I know just replaced
Blackboard ($) with moodle (OSS) quite successfully. Linux obviously
has had a huge impact on Solaris (now OSS), AIX, HP-UX, DG-UX, and
Tru64 (or whatever Digital Unix is now called). It is rather hard to
compete with Eclipse (IBM-backed, leading to WebSphere) too and that is
not exactly a group of idealists who set that up, I suspect.

However, I saw a TV segment this week with knockoffs of Oscar dresses.
They didn't look nearly as nice as the originals, I thought. Why do
people pay hundreds of thousands for a CRM when there are free CRM
systems around?

I agree it would be very difficult to figure out a viable business
model, especially if you don't want to hang a consulting shingle.

This is why some s/w companies have a free version that is useful and
usable and another where you need to pay for added features. I don't
know if this approach is successful or not.

Yup. I agree. In the music industry, the listener can distinguish
between a song they want to buy and one they will only listen to free.
It isn't easy for the user to make decisions about software unless they
have a place to "listen to the music" before buying. So, they want to
use software free before deciding and it takes longer than the length
of a song to know if they would spend money. By that time, they have
used the product without spending money. It works, so they don't need
to spend money on product, only services perhaps.

Even if you have a really good idea and an excellent excution of it, a
large company or others can take your idea and make a free version. I
agree that it is a challenge.

I agree that there is a challenge here. One way to address it is to
figure out a business model that take free software as a reality into
account. I don't have the answers on how to do that other than
"services" which is hardly a satisfying answer.

Hey, we agree on somethin' Smiles. --dawn

Tedd Scofield wrote:

That is a good question, but I'm not sure it really matters how I view
it. If someone is willing to provide the same product/service at no
cost, it can make it quite difficult to compete.

--
Kevin Powick

Kevin Powick wrote:
[SNIP]
The music industry says, "Hi!"

--
frosty

To me at least, a product is some physical unit that I purchase (like a
car or a house or a shrinkwrapped box containing disks) and you make
money off of selling many units. A service may or may not have some
thing phyiscal I keep but what I'm actually paying for is a human being
to do something for me and you make money of a recurring fee.

If you take the point of view that software is a product, the old
shrinkwrapped box of disks, then I agree with what you say there.
Nobody really gives out any free cars or houses, at least not for very
long. If money were only made with software off those physcial units
then I would answer your original question with a no. If you take the
point of view that software is more of a service that your customers
pay you to deliver then I would answer your original question with a
yes, I think its great!

I'm still a noobie in this software for a living game but I've been
watching it long enough to see that there is trend shifting away from
the shrinkwrapped product approach, which free software hurts really
bad, to a more service oriented approach, which free software can help
out a lot. It seems to me that there is more money to be made through
recurring income than one time purchases so overall I think free
software is good for developers.

dawn wrote:

Maybe not overly satisfying, but it seems to be the way things will go.

Formerly (or is it formally?), we sold products built upon knowledge
and experience. Now we will give away these products for little or no
cost, but we'll charge for the knowledge and experience by providing
services to ensure these free products work for your organization.
What spin :-)

At least with the one-off, custom solution, incorporating free software
gives you the option of better pricing for your customer, or better
margins for you.

Although free software may not directly compete with a particular
product you provide, the idea that software should cost next to nothing
can get into the general public's head and make it difficult to sell
solutions.

--
Kevin Powick

Tedd Scofield wrote:

I guess the problem I'm seeing is that more and more people are being
let to believe or expect that software and services should be
extraordinarily cheap, regardless of the value provided.

Prices are being driven lower and lower. This doesn't hurt the people
who work on free software in their "spare" time, but it does hurt those
tyring to make a living at it.

Imagine if the guy who used his spare time to work on free software,
but made a living as a plummer, was suddenly faced with a group of
people offering free plumbiming services in their spare time? I don't
think he would be too happy.

Also, isn't the value of software being diminished? What moden company
today could survive without the power and convenience of computers and
software?


--
Kevin Powick

Kevin Powick wrote:
And what if you want to write software that requires no training or
services to use? You still need to write it and maintain it for users.
So, you need to do the entire software and maintenance thereof as an
advertisement for other products and possibly unrelated services (if
you have written software requiring no services). That means that
software is, effectively, an advertisement for some other source of
income. I'm sure this has to have an affect on what gets written and
deployed.

For as long as you have the best product and no free products provide
similar features.

It seems like that would be the case, but there are certainly plenty of
s/w companies that are doing well right now, I think. So, there is
still a market for s/w that costs dollars even if it is a riskier
business model for a small business. Cheers! --dawn