5 ms·
Well, if something is genuinely "useful", the people who find it useful are generally willing to pay for it; unless they choose to spend their resources on some
by dkural 11y ago
Well, if something is genuinely "useful", the people who find it useful are generally willing to pay for it; unless they choose to spend their resources on something that they deem even more useful. Thus in general I think things should have a price; in order to facilitate the construction and maintenance of said thing. More subtly; this also gives the users of that thing more of a say in how that is built -- i.e in accordance with their needs as opposed to arbitrary design or engineering decisions, etc. In other words, having paying customers keeps you accountable. This is why so much publication-associated academic software is garbage from a usability perspective - no one has an incentive to care about users; therefore people don't.
A curious observation about most users: Most Users often prefer the good/service that works better / easier to use; even if closed; to the open source one that is perceived to be not as good. Many, many programmers / academics (those poor academics..) use mac laptops. They're nice.
Open Source is also great from securing long-term existence, and from a reproducibility, and hackability perspective. Pursuing a commercial open source model, if viable, could really address both short + long-term sustainability.
I truly don't think mathematics departments in the US are "too poor" to pay for software; there are nice offices, budgets for events, very expensive journals, etc. Many universities have massive endowments. It is just that they often choose to spend it elsewhere. I'd recommend charging a higher price to commercial entities and universities, charging students a small fee; and giving it for free to "3rd world", developing, etc. countries. Selling into the library budget, or IT budget, might not be the worst idea.
If your student has a cell phone, they can afford to pay 20 bucks a month for the cloud sage edition; instead of buying more booze, pizza, or another movie ticket. If they are not doing that; it either means they value some other service more highly; or they don't value their education & their time.
- plonh 11y agoDid you read he article? Simoms bought a license from the closed source academic authors, and gave them to every academic institution in the world (but not amateurs). No one is paying for it (except Simons), so there is no voting with wallets happening here. Simone picked a winner. Academics don't really have a lot of funding , and purchase decisions cone from administrative boards (like the folks who buy Enterprise Windows+Office deployments), not the users. See also: tragedy of the commons, and free riders. People like not paying for things, regardless of quality.
- NotOscarWilde 11y ago> Simoms bought a license from the closed source academic authors, and gave them to every academic institution in the world The article only mentions academics from North America in this quote [1]. Where did you find the information about "every academic institution in the world"? As an academic in Europe I feel quite upset when an academic project is region-locked. Simons Foundation has lost quite a bit a respect from me for this. (My original respect for them was for their frequent posting of lectures on YouTube, which is something more institutions should do throughout the world.) [1]: "In the backroom during a coffee break, David Eisenbud told me that it had already been decided that they were going to just fund Magma by making it freely available to all academics in North America."
- plonh 11y agoYou are right. Parent post misstated the details; the reality is even worse, and along the same lines.
- plonh 11y agoEdit: North America, not whole world, sorry. My sense of anti-chauvinism prevented me from registering the truth of the matter.