The User Always Loses

I think, personally, that it's because only the most iconoclastic individuals are willing to put in the effort to make truly free software (like MIT licensed, for example) since they have the raw, unfettered drive (based on their hatred of the mainstream) required to work through the years of programming for zero monetary returns that it takes to produce a feature-complete software project that does something worthwhile.

I believe we could partially solve this problem if we could better support the work-a-day developer with a great idea, who either doesn't have the risk profile to quit their job or doesn't have the free time to slave away in their home after their normal job. These people tend to be the programmer/engineer who worked in one or several companies in a similar industry, has seen the mistakes and insights from each, and can visualize a better data structure for a common operation in this industry, or perhaps even a new operational model that works more efficiently for optimizing some common problem.

However, those developers just don't have the incentive/drive/motivation to do it, and usually that's because their method of survival is to sell their time to another person/corporation in exchange for money that can be used to buy food, shelter, etc. and thus they are too tired, too demotivated, or perhaps they just want to spend some time with their family and friends. Whatever the reason, if you allow them some more of their free time to work on other stuff, these developers will come up with amazing things. There is an argument that some make about the "laziness" of developers who can't do a job and become a CEO of a startup and have a family, but why insinuate or argue that they're too lazy and unworthy when we could un-block their "laziness" and get great results for humanity? (My view is that no one is "lazy", just that some people have a higher "activation energy", but once they are "activated" most people will work as hard as the next.)

Also, I personally think software serving the interests of one person is going to be generally better than software serving the interests of greed, but I have no evidence, just a feeling from my life experiences.

This transformation of customers to “users” (an otherwise appropriate and even innocuous term when used in context) parallels the commonplace use of “consumer” for “person” (a usage I even see on HN).

We all have many roles, in which it may be appropriate to consider us as “user”, “customer”, “consumer”, “driver”, “parent”, “friend”...* preferring the term “person” might remind us that at the end of the day that the user’s interest is not necessarily aligned with ours (usually joystick in face) and that we need them more than they need us.

* I had a colleague who refers to parents of teens as “protectors of terrorists”. Yes, he had four teens himself. While the term was unwieldy and the joke rapidly wore thin, it reminded me of the various roles played by parents...and kids, and made me more tolerant of the foibles of teens. When we bundle a person into “user” it’s easy to lose perspective on the actual objective.

> a new framework for how we build technology companies in the first place

The great thing about the free market is anybody can create a company in whatever framework they like.

For example, the D Language Foundation. We don't make money, it's pretty much all volunteers and support from industry. We don't "extract" any value from our users.

This is hardly the only example.

It varies by the software. Some free software is a lot better than others.