Linked by David Adams on Mon 16th Aug 2004 17:44 UTC
I read something in one of the comments for an OSNews posting a couple weeks ago that sent me thinking. It wasn't an original or profound thought. In fact, it's a rather commonly-held opinion that happens to be quite misguided. It's an opinion summed up by the "open source = communist" meme that gets thrown around in thousands of flamewars all over the internet. In this essay, I will explore why this idea is wrong and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
1. Microsfot has little to no competetion
Thats a matter of debate actually, and depends on the particular market and market segment. Even in segments where they don't, that cannot last forever.
2. Were talking tens of thousands vs hundreds of dollars. Modern Example: compair Oracle Database software lock-in vs Microsoft SQL Server Lock-in for a medium sized database.
When you are competing with free, hundreds may as well be tens of thousands.
Fact is, actual amounts don't matter. All that matters is that the cost of software is being artificially inflated. Thats what Novell and others did then giving MS their "in", thats what MS is doing now. How long until FOSS or cheaper competitors take that "in"?
I own MS Office 2003 Small business version and i feel it was worth every cent of the $200 i payed for it.
And at one time many corporations probably felt the same way about their $10,000 dollar software too.
Would you feel the same way if others where selling equivilent software for $19.95? Or gving it away as a free download? Software is nothing. It has no intrinsic value simply by existing like material goods do. It costs nothing to reproduce. The only value that a program has is the value we artificaly assign it.