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
I predict Microsoft would compete by creating a better product or a better value.
Exactly, because you can't inflate the value of software like that, as you yourself pointed out with the Novell example above. Thats really all I was saying.
Seriously what better motivation to create something better than MS Office then to make some cash doing it? I use postfix and think it is the best Open Source mail programs in existence. What do you think would make it as good as MS exchange faster, a "Good job" and a thanks for the free stuff! to Wietse Venema or a two million dollar venture capital investment into Wietse's work.(Wietse if i had the money i would hook you up!
Wether or not software ends up being free or just cheaper is imaterial to the discussion. The point is that there IS somthing wrong with MS's masive profits, and the rebuttle you posted served only to disprove itself.
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.
Well you discount the wages to coders, R&D, Marketing and god knows what else that goes into creating something like MS Office. Granted i am sure that MS turns a profit on the investment shortly after they release a software product such as Office. However I don't resent Microsoft for making money like many people here seem to do.
Oh of course to develope the software costs money, but the problem is that MS grossly inflates prices beyond the cost of development and a modest profit. Also, development costs have nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the software itself. The software itself is mearly information. The developer of a program can choose to share it for free, or for a cost, but the cost you pay is nothing more then the cost of providing it to you and/or a license fee to make use of their intellectual property.