Software is not abundant. Software is expensive. Software developers are expensive.
Google and Facebook are not build on dirt-cheap software. They pay some of the highest salaries in the industry.
Price is a negotiation. Say I sell a software product for $50/month. Either it generates more than $50/month value to you, in which case you buy it, or it doesn't, so you don't. How much it's costs me to deliver it is irrelevant to you. If you think you can get a better deal using a different product, then go do that. If enough people do that, I am forced to lower my prices, change my product, or go out of business.
If software is that easy, you should start a software company.
If software is that easy, you should start a software company.
Hmm... Is it unethical to release software for free? I was just thinking- my first thought after reading 4 is: "if software was that easy... I wouldn't be starting a software company, I'd be releasing it for free or by donation."
This goes against my intuitions, but- in an economic sense, releasing OSS that serves the purpose of a paid product is subsidizing the undercutting of that product and reducing programmer salaries right? Which could potentially stifle innovation.
Ideologically I want software to be free, but this thread has made me consider that releasing software for free could have negative effects on the ecosystem.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Software is not abundant. Software is expensive. Software developers are expensive.
Google and Facebook are not build on dirt-cheap software. They pay some of the highest salaries in the industry.
Price is a negotiation. Say I sell a software product for $50/month. Either it generates more than $50/month value to you, in which case you buy it, or it doesn't, so you don't. How much it's costs me to deliver it is irrelevant to you. If you think you can get a better deal using a different product, then go do that. If enough people do that, I am forced to lower my prices, change my product, or go out of business.
If software is that easy, you should start a software company.
Hmm... Is it unethical to release software for free? I was just thinking- my first thought after reading 4 is: "if software was that easy... I wouldn't be starting a software company, I'd be releasing it for free or by donation."
This goes against my intuitions, but- in an economic sense, releasing OSS that serves the purpose of a paid product is subsidizing the undercutting of that product and reducing programmer salaries right? Which could potentially stifle innovation.
Ideologically I want software to be free, but this thread has made me consider that releasing software for free could have negative effects on the ecosystem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link