5 ms·

It's the lack of straightforward substitutes that keep prices high on software and drugs. The large fixed cost of development only means that (proprietary) sof

It's the lack of straightforward substitutes that keep prices high on software and drugs. The large fixed cost of development only means that (proprietary) software won't get written or drugs won't be discovered and put through FDA trials if prices fall due to competition. Take commercial C compilers. Used to be a thriving industry, but once Gcc got good enough, people stopped paying.

kiba 16y ago
Right, copyright often retard and frustrate attempt to get it to marginal cost. Still, there are pirated goods, which are often inferior products due to inconvenient access. The one exception that I had already mentioned are translated Japanese manga and to less extent other Asia originated comics such as China and Korea. Generally, they act more as advertising and brake to competitor substitute goods that could otherwise gain momentum.
- rick888 16y ago
  "which are often inferior products due to inconvenient access" It's interesting because DRM and the "inconvenient access" you speak of were created as a direct result of mass piracy.
neutronicus 16y ago
People certainly still pay for intel's C compiler.
- kiba 16y ago
  So it doesn't completely displace most compiler, but it does displace a lot? On the flip side, how many people actually use Intel's C compiler as opposed to people who just use GCC?
  - hvs 16y ago
    On Windows, GCC is not a very viable option (yes, I'm aware of Cygwin, MinGW, etc) for production software right now. And you'll be hard pressed to find a solid compiler that ISN'T proprietary.
    - fragmede 16y ago
      On Windows, perhaps due to competition from GCC, perhaps not, Microsoft offers various Visual Studio Express editions free of charge, and the license allows commercial use, so you can sell programs made with Express editions. You're right in that the compiler IS proprietary, but the question is not of license, but of wallet cost to user - $0.
bad_user 16y ago
> once Gcc got good enough, people stopped paying People still pay for development tools. Lots of people paid for IntelliJ IDEA even with Eclipse around. GCC is also a piss poor compiler by any standard, that's why many people have such high hopes for LLVM. You also have to think about "complementary products" ... Apple is investing in the LLVM/GCC compilers because it helps them sell their hardware with their proprietary OS installed, which is by no means free. The cost of replication or the lack of substitutes is irrelevant ... people don't use GIMP over Photoshop because a Photoshop substitute is fucking hard to develop ... it took 22 years to reach its current state.
- kiba 16y ago
  People still pay for development tools. Lots of people paid for IntelliJ IDEA even with Eclipse around. I think a free product have to be utterly superior to a paid product in order to displace commercial products. The cost of replication or the lack of substitutes is irrelevant ... people don't use GIMP over Photoshop because a Photoshop substitute is fucking hard to develop ... it took 22 years to reach its current state. I am not parsing this statement. Do you mean that because it take 22 years to develop Photoshop, that it is impossible for GIMP to be good enough to be a substitute good thus eventually displacing it?
  - pchristensen 16y ago
    "I think a free product have to be utterly superior to a paid product in order to displace commercial products." In order to completely displace commercial products, yes. But for any reasonably complex or powerful product, there's a market of customers that are overserved by it and would pay less for less if they could. This is usually handled by product segmentation - think of options in cars. If you don't need the extra power, go for the 4-cylinder instead of the V-6. If cash is more important than comfort, skip the leather seats. If you need the fastest, most luxurious car and money isn't an option, check every box on the list.
- Symmetry 16y ago
  > GCC is also a piss poor compiler by any standard, that's why many people have such high hopes for LLVM. I hear this a lot, but when I see places where people have actually done benchmarks GCC usually doesn't come out too bad, and when you look at the correctness of the code (for C at least) its hard to find something better than GCC.

kiba 16y ago

Right, copyright often retard and frustrate attempt to get it to marginal cost. Still, there are pirated goods, which are often inferior products due to inconvenient access. The one exception that I had already mentioned are translated Japanese manga and to less extent other Asia originated comics such as China and Korea. Generally, they act more as advertising and brake to competitor substitute goods that could otherwise gain momentum.

rick888 16y ago
"which are often inferior products due to inconvenient access" It's interesting because DRM and the "inconvenient access" you speak of were created as a direct result of mass piracy.

neutronicus 16y ago

People certainly still pay for intel's C compiler.

kiba 16y ago
So it doesn't completely displace most compiler, but it does displace a lot? On the flip side, how many people actually use Intel's C compiler as opposed to people who just use GCC?
- hvs 16y ago
  On Windows, GCC is not a very viable option (yes, I'm aware of Cygwin, MinGW, etc) for production software right now. And you'll be hard pressed to find a solid compiler that ISN'T proprietary.
  - fragmede 16y ago
    On Windows, perhaps due to competition from GCC, perhaps not, Microsoft offers various Visual Studio Express editions free of charge, and the license allows commercial use, so you can sell programs made with Express editions. You're right in that the compiler IS proprietary, but the question is not of license, but of wallet cost to user - $0.

bad_user 16y ago

> once Gcc got good enough, people stopped paying People still pay for development tools. Lots of people paid for IntelliJ IDEA even with Eclipse around. GCC is also a piss poor compiler by any standard, that's why many people have such high hopes for LLVM. You also have to think about "complementary products" ... Apple is investing in the LLVM/GCC compilers because it helps them sell their hardware with their proprietary OS installed, which is by no means free. The cost of replication or the lack of substitutes is irrelevant ... people don't use GIMP over Photoshop because a Photoshop substitute is fucking hard to develop ... it took 22 years to reach its current state.

kiba 16y ago
People still pay for development tools. Lots of people paid for IntelliJ IDEA even with Eclipse around. I think a free product have to be utterly superior to a paid product in order to displace commercial products. The cost of replication or the lack of substitutes is irrelevant ... people don't use GIMP over Photoshop because a Photoshop substitute is fucking hard to develop ... it took 22 years to reach its current state. I am not parsing this statement. Do you mean that because it take 22 years to develop Photoshop, that it is impossible for GIMP to be good enough to be a substitute good thus eventually displacing it?
- pchristensen 16y ago
  "I think a free product have to be utterly superior to a paid product in order to displace commercial products." In order to completely displace commercial products, yes. But for any reasonably complex or powerful product, there's a market of customers that are overserved by it and would pay less for less if they could. This is usually handled by product segmentation - think of options in cars. If you don't need the extra power, go for the 4-cylinder instead of the V-6. If cash is more important than comfort, skip the leather seats. If you need the fastest, most luxurious car and money isn't an option, check every box on the list.
Symmetry 16y ago
> GCC is also a piss poor compiler by any standard, that's why many people have such high hopes for LLVM. I hear this a lot, but when I see places where people have actually done benchmarks GCC usually doesn't come out too bad, and when you look at the correctness of the code (for C at least) its hard to find something better than GCC.