111–120 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We software developers are in a whole heap of a lot of trouble if we expect the broad market to dignify the idea that digital goods are legitimately priced at "what they cost to copy".
Software developers don't have to sell "digital goods". They can sell their work. Pay a developer to get the feature you want added next.
The underlying attitude that bothers me in these discussions on HN is that most of us are in the software business, so what it amounts to is "my intellectual property (software) is super valuable, and your intellectual property (photos, music, writing) is worthless". Do we really want to live in a world where people can't make a living from photography or writing or music?
The underlying attitude that bothers me in these discussions on HN is that most of us are in the software business, so what it amounts to is "my intellectual property (software) is super valuable, and your intellectual property (photos, music, writing) is worthless". Do we really want to live in a world where people can't make a living from photography or writing or music?
I'd give you a strait answer, but do you realize that the Free Software Movement is much more widespread than royalty free photography or music? Furthermore, among the crafts you mentioned, being a programmer is by far the less profitable one. I'll untwist your twisted question. Honestly, why are you so worried about 'artists' and not worried about programmers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd give you a strait answer, but do you realize that the Free Software Movement is much more widespread than royalty free photography or music? Furthermore, among the crafts you mentioned, being a programmer is by far the less profitable one. I'll untwist your twisted question. Honestly, why are you so worried about 'artists' and not worried about programmers?
[deleted]
So what? You chose to make your photograph free. John Mueller chose to charge for his work. The point is that the creator gets to charge for his work if he wants. If the price is too high, he doesn't make money. If the price is too low, he doesn't maximize revenue. But it is his choice to make.
However, we as a collective, are welcome to change our minds if that freedom is proving to not be beneficial to society.
This is the problem we are facing today. More and more are changing their minds on the matter. They are not seeing the social value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd also like to mention, since I apparently got downvoted because of this response, that it completely misinterpreted my original comment, quite clearly. When people ask me to do work for them for free, there's no way I'd agree. Of course that's stupid, and I've heard that plenty of times, and turned it down every time. What I was saying, and what I thought I made clear but apparently didn't enough, was that you sho…
I get your distinction, though I don't see how it's relevant. Work that one does out of pure interest and passion, in their free time, is still valuable. I have a family friend who's retired, and intensely interested in woodwork. He has a workshop you wouldn't believe, and honestly doesn't need the money - and yet we always pay him for his work, custom or otherwise. And by this we don't mean simply covering his costs…
I'm not trying to devalue anyone's work or property, and if they insist that it all has value, it all belongs to them, and everyone should have to pay for it, that's fine. It's an opinion that I do respect, like I said originally.
I just think that a more open attitude is better, personally, which goes back to the original reason for my comment. Rather than trying to make money off every tiny piece of work you put out there, why not open source some of your work. For the good of the community. Sure, you will be losing some profit by doing this, but more people will be able to enjoy your work, and I think that's more valuable.
The author of the original article does not think this, and I understand that. He is not worried about having his work out there, or getting exposure, he apparently has enough, and he wants to get paid for it. That's fine.
I'm just trying to say that I don't personally agree with that philosophy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software developers don't have to sell "digital goods". They can sell their work. Pay a developer to get the feature you want added next.
That works great, as long as we're all happy shaving a couple orders of magnitude off the value of the software industry.
There is a difference. GPL software like Linux is hugely valuable, it's value is generally not measured, since it is a cost saving (and a near no-brainer to choose when the quitting is good), not a profit or expense.
Also, MS and Apple (only _really_ since recently) sell software, but Google and Facebook no not.
Or, "How not to make money selling software: a succinct illustration of cost-based and market-based (specifically, value-based) pricing in just two comment threads." Why can Github charge FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR for a local install of Github and succeed, impressively so, despite a small army of nerds pointing out how inexpensive it is to run one's own Git server and Gitorious? Why does 37signals have an office…
Right. You're discrediting the Labor Theory of Value, variations of which are endlessly seductive and are always creeping back in as The Way Things Ought To Be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to digress too much from your original comment (which I completely agree with) but I think there's a certain "smugness" that I see associated with people who release anything as free--as if somehow the act of benevolence has put them on a plane above those who choose not to. I think that's unfortunate for multiple reasons; not the least of which is that people should be commended for sharing things under free / o…
I feel the same as you. Giving (music, money, software), is extremely personal, and one that shouldn't be done lightly, or out of pressure from others. Personally, I'd love to be able to release a beneficial OSS software tool or commit a valuable patch to a project, but I'm not a good enough developer. Yet, I feel like a second class citizen in the development community because I haven't
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That works great, as long as we're all happy shaving a couple orders of magnitude off the value of the software industry.
s/value/profit/ There is a difference. GPL software like Linux is hugely valuable, it's value is generally not measured, since it is a cost saving (and a near no-brainer to choose when the quitting is good), not a profit or expense. Also, MS and Apple (only _really_ since recently) sell software, but Google and Facebook no not.
Anyways, this is a tangent from the point I was originally trying to make.