3 ms·

"Any medium sized graphics shop could have a full developer on the payroll for a fraction of the repeated licensing costs of proprietary solutions" If the retu

by jsty 7y ago

"Any medium sized graphics shop could have a full developer on the payroll for a fraction of the repeated licensing costs of proprietary solutions" If the returns to the particular company that employed the developer was higher than the opportunity cost of expending that money elsewhere in the company, then you'd have a strong case for that. However, most medium sized graphics shops are probably concerned that they'd effectively be subsidising their competitors' production costs, since the 'exclusive' returns to the shop employing the developer are likely minimal compared to any other user of the feature they develop. The free rider problem / tragedy of the commons strikes again.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> However, most medium sized graphics shops are probably concerned that they'd effectively be subsidising their competitors' production costs, since the 'exclusive' returns to the shop employing the developer are likely minimal compared to any other user of the feature they develop. What causes most usage of big proprietary software is that the software has 10,000 features and every customer only needs five of them, but for each customer it's a different five. That makes it hard for a free competitor to get users because adding five features only gets one customer; it scales poorly without revenue. But as the customer yourself, having your developer add the five things you yourself need is completely feasible, and doesn't help your competitors that much because the five things they need are different.
- phkahler 7y ago
  Nobody wants to wait for a developer to implement the things they want. If they have work to do, they need a solution NOW. Pick what's available and pay what it costs. For commercial software that's some $$$ and for Free software that's $0.00. Then once the purchase has been made, the question of paying someone to work on it is a separate issue. Most rational people would say "why would I do that?" Comparing paying a FLOSS developer to paying for commercial software doesn't make sense. Companies don't see themselves as funding development either way.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Nobody wants to wait for a developer to implement the things they want. And yet they still want them, and things take non-zero time to implement regardless of who is doing it. It's not as if proprietary software appears from whole cloth in zero time containing every feature requested by every customer. > If they have work to do, they need a solution NOW. If they have work to do they can do it the same way they did it last week. But when the question comes whether to upgrade to the new version of the proprietary software, you should ask whether it makes more sense to pay the money to do that this year, or stay on the existing version for a year while you use the money that you would have spent and instead get the free software equivalent into a state that it satisfies your needs, then never have to pay for the proprietary software again. > Then once the purchase has been made, the question of paying someone to work on it is a separate issue. Most rational people would say "why would I do that?" Because you have twenty or more full-time people using it and if you can make them each even a single digit percentage more efficient on a permanent basis, it becomes highly profitable to hire the software developer that allows that to happen. > Comparing paying a FLOSS developer to paying for commercial software doesn't make sense. Companies don't see themselves as funding development either way. What did they think the proprietary software license money was funding?
    - phkahler 7y ago
      They probably see it as rent. There is awareness that newer versions may be better, but they pay to use the software.
jeremyjh 7y ago
You could make the same argument about commercial software. The money you pay the developer will go into building features and better quality software that helps your competition as much or more as it helps you. Yes they are also paying, what difference does that make? I don't see why you'd waste time worrying about this in either case.
- mcdevilkiller 7y ago
  At least, your competitors will pay too. If it was open source, they could use it without contributing back.

by jsty 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> However, most medium sized graphics shops are probably concerned that they'd effectively be subsidising their competitors' production costs, since the 'exclusive' returns to the shop employing the developer are likely minimal compared to any other user of the feature they develop. What causes most usage of big proprietary software is that the software has 10,000 features and every customer only needs five of them, but for each customer it's a different five. That makes it hard for a free competitor to get users because adding five features only gets one customer; it scales poorly without revenue. But as the customer yourself, having your developer add the five things you yourself need is completely feasible, and doesn't help your competitors that much because the five things they need are different.

phkahler 7y ago
Nobody wants to wait for a developer to implement the things they want. If they have work to do, they need a solution NOW. Pick what's available and pay what it costs. For commercial software that's some $$$ and for Free software that's $0.00. Then once the purchase has been made, the question of paying someone to work on it is a separate issue. Most rational people would say "why would I do that?" Comparing paying a FLOSS developer to paying for commercial software doesn't make sense. Companies don't see themselves as funding development either way.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Nobody wants to wait for a developer to implement the things they want. And yet they still want them, and things take non-zero time to implement regardless of who is doing it. It's not as if proprietary software appears from whole cloth in zero time containing every feature requested by every customer. > If they have work to do, they need a solution NOW. If they have work to do they can do it the same way they did it last week. But when the question comes whether to upgrade to the new version of the proprietary software, you should ask whether it makes more sense to pay the money to do that this year, or stay on the existing version for a year while you use the money that you would have spent and instead get the free software equivalent into a state that it satisfies your needs, then never have to pay for the proprietary software again. > Then once the purchase has been made, the question of paying someone to work on it is a separate issue. Most rational people would say "why would I do that?" Because you have twenty or more full-time people using it and if you can make them each even a single digit percentage more efficient on a permanent basis, it becomes highly profitable to hire the software developer that allows that to happen. > Comparing paying a FLOSS developer to paying for commercial software doesn't make sense. Companies don't see themselves as funding development either way. What did they think the proprietary software license money was funding?
  - phkahler 7y ago
    They probably see it as rent. There is awareness that newer versions may be better, but they pay to use the software.

jeremyjh 7y ago

You could make the same argument about commercial software. The money you pay the developer will go into building features and better quality software that helps your competition as much or more as it helps you. Yes they are also paying, what difference does that make? I don't see why you'd waste time worrying about this in either case.

mcdevilkiller 7y ago
At least, your competitors will pay too. If it was open source, they could use it without contributing back.