piracy and oss

Mike Rambo mrambo@lsd.k12.mi.us
Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:41:27 -0400


Interesting thread. It would appear that there are probably a couple of
camps most folks would generally fall into. I have to admit I tend to
agree more with Marcel though. I know that I _routinely_ ignore new
software because I'm unwilling to pay what they ask for it. So far
anyway, I've not run across anything I had to have so bad I was willing
to pay full price. Just a little patience and it'll be 1/3 to 1/2 the
cost in 6 months or a year - if not - I don't really need it. For me,
the economics _far_ outweighs the cool factor or utility of the
latest-greatest software. Perhaps that would be different if my economic
pie was a little larger - but I suspect not - I'm by nature conservative
with resources. Really, the same goes for hardware with me. I'm always
at least a few years behind the latest technology simply because I'm not
willing to pay big bucks for something that'll be old technology for 1/3
the cost in a couple years time.

I think Marcel is correct that there are a lot of folks who take
software that has been purchased (perhaps) by their business and put it
at home rationalizing that they need it for work tasks at home and they
only use one copy at a time or something. I personally know of a number
who have. I know even of a business in East Lansing that got busted by
AutoCad for unlicensed software copies. I doubt there'd be even 1% of
them that would remove that software when they change jobs. If each of
those folks had to decide whether to shell out $300 (or whatever M$
Office costs for example) for that software, I _know_ that at least some
of the folks (that I know anyway) would choose StarOffice or (more
likely) the software602 office package instead of M$ Office.

There are undoubtedly many people who would be as Tim describes - maybe
about half - because the other half is more like what Marcel has
described. This would cause me to conclude that Marcel is probably right
that, to whatever degree, there is some impact on open source software
from the amount of proprietary software folks rationalize they have a
right to use without paying for.

My 2 cents.


-- 
Mike Rambo
mrambo@lsd.k12.mi.us


Tim Schmidt wrote:
> 
> My point (perhaps I should have done more than imply?) is that the real
> value of software lies not in it's shelf price, but what it can do for it's
> user (This line of thinking meshes well with that of software as a service
> and not an industrial product).  Who cares how much software costs?  No one.
>   If you need the service, you will pay whatever it takes to get the
> software that provides that service.  If that software costs $5000 you'll
> pay it.  If it's free, bonus.
> 
> I know this because Machintosh users routinely pay 2x as much for their
> computers as an equivalent PC, 3D renderering artists pay $20000 for Maya
> and similar software, Offices pay $500 for a copy of MS Office 2k, etc etc
> etc...  They all provide services that people want/need.  The problem with
> GNU/Linux addoption is not price, it's function and education.  Users who
> are aware of GNU/Linux are either using it, or waiting for software to
> provide every service they need.  The average home user has most of his
> needs taken care of already (out-of-the-box office, net, e-mail, etc.), but
> still needs an easy way to buy/install games (for both big and little kids).
>   That's it.  That's all that's keeping linux off of every desktop I know of
> (I know of -lots-).
> 
> Most people are content with the pre-installed software for just about
> everything, but they have to have the newest game... Installation of said
> game is the only rough spot (most win32 games run fine on transgaming's WINE
> tree, but that's a bit too much of a hassle for a windows user (DL form CVS,
> compile, install, configure, then install game, etc...), Linux games are few
> and far between on store shelves).
> 
> If Linux was absolutely every bit as easy to use (think: install my games
> on) as Win32, but still retained all its current advantages, people would
> buy it even of it cost twice as much as Windows.
> 
> I don't think price has a lot to do with software adoption.
> 
> >From: "Marcel Kunath" <kunathma@pilot.msu.edu>
> >
> >Well I started this thread and make my closing remarks. Even though there
> >is
> >lots of things to consider here I still believe all are miniscule compared
> >to
> >the economic / financial example I had given and unless I have totally
> >overlooked something in my calculation or I am not taking enough things
> >into
> >account I am pretty certain piracy lowers the market value of proprieytory
> >software to a value of free software and hence chokes of demand for free
> >software. (market value as in us dollar cost)
> >
> >mk
> >