4 ms·

"It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to op

"It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good." I think this is not accurate. I recently purchased the 'Humble Indie Bundle 2' games package which was available for all platforms. This was offered on a 'pay what you want' basis and, after deciding how much you would pay and purchasing the games, they provided some very interesting data: http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg In this case (maybe it's unusual?) Linux users were willing to (voluntarily) fork out more cash for these games than either Windows or Mac users. Perhaps it's because payment wasn't strictly necessary or something, I don't know. I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it.

pohl 16y ago
I think those figures just show that the desperate Linux users were grateful for finally getting some mercy sex, as it were.
roel_v 16y ago
"I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it." Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux (yes I know about Oracle...), and the spectacular failure of anyone trying to make any (who here remembers Corel's ill-faited WordPerfect for Linux attempt, or Loki games?) are devastating proof that the exact opposite is true. (I guess one could argue that 2$ is the 'reasonable price' for any and all software, but that's just closing one's eyes to the economic realities of the software industry). I mean let's not beat around the bush: Linux users don't pay for software in any sizable amount. Plunking down a few bucks for some games once every decade doesn't count. I like Linux as much as the next guy and I've used it since 1998, but the extremists (at the FSF and elsewhere) that have managed to somehow convince a large enough portion of Linux users that paying for software is somehow a moral issue (I mean, seriously?) have killed 90% of the market in that area. Yes I know that a few companies left and right make a few cents on 'support' and other such frolicking in the margin, but Red Hat is the only one who has managed to make any serious money from Linux itself (as opposed to some others who have found a sound and cheap platform on it to build their product offerings on, those seem to do OK with it)..
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  I see it as more like: Linux users will not pay for something when they're forced to pay for something, but when they don't have to pay for something, they're more likely to pay for it than other groups are. (Most still won't if they don't have to, but some will, in a much higher percentage than users from more mainstream OS's). I think they're also much more likely to do without than to pirate. Of course, it's easy for people to rationalize piracy in their head -- it has DRM, it's too expensive, the company is evil, et cetera. But I think Linux users are much more likely than other operating system users to do without rather than pirate. OTOH, OSX users are probably more likely to pay for things than do without. I don't think the Android/iOS ecosystems have shaken out enough to make broad generalizations yet. Myself, I'm definitely a "Linux" style user. I've purchased a few Android apps, but all of them have very usable free editions. Typically, all the paid version does is remove the advertising. Removing advertising is not worth $5 to me, but I sometimes buy the premium version anyways.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    The cynic in me would say that Linux pirate less because there's nothing to pirate >:) but I do agree with your overall assessment.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Some may be unwillingness to pay, but when it comes to user experience, proprietary apps (paid or not) have never fit in that well either. Long before "app stores" became common on other platforms, users of at least Debian-based distributions (and a few others) have been grabbing most of their software from an appstore-like interface from their distro: you click on the app in synaptic and it installs, configures, and someone is responsible for ensuring it plays nice with the rest of the system. Similar story for, say, FreeBSD ports. If you want software not in the repository, it is usually a much worse user experience. You get some static binary with a .sh install script, which wants to install in /opt/ or something, doesn't add itself to the distro's menu system, doesn't integrate with the settings manager, your default browser, etc., and generally is a pain in the ass. Even true for no-money proprietary apps, e.g. getting icc on my system was a lot more annoying than getting gcc or llvm on it, at least last time I tried.
drblast 16y ago
It's hard to draw conclusions about the desktop Linux market since it's so vanishingly small. I'd happily buy games for Linux. But I don't normally buy games at all; I buy maybe one a year. If I'm a typical case, a company could produce a game and fail financially even though they've captured most of the market.

pohl 16y ago

I think those figures just show that the desperate Linux users were grateful for finally getting some mercy sex, as it were.

roel_v 16y ago

"I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it." Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux (yes I know about Oracle...), and the spectacular failure of anyone trying to make any (who here remembers Corel's ill-faited WordPerfect for Linux attempt, or Loki games?) are devastating proof that the exact opposite is true. (I guess one could argue that 2$ is the 'reasonable price' for any and all software, but that's just closing one's eyes to the economic realities of the software industry). I mean let's not beat around the bush: Linux users don't pay for software in any sizable amount. Plunking down a few bucks for some games once every decade doesn't count. I like Linux as much as the next guy and I've used it since 1998, but the extremists (at the FSF and elsewhere) that have managed to somehow convince a large enough portion of Linux users that paying for software is somehow a moral issue (I mean, seriously?) have killed 90% of the market in that area. Yes I know that a few companies left and right make a few cents on 'support' and other such frolicking in the margin, but Red Hat is the only one who has managed to make any serious money from Linux itself (as opposed to some others who have found a sound and cheap platform on it to build their product offerings on, those seem to do OK with it)..

bryanlarsen 16y ago
I see it as more like: Linux users will not pay for something when they're forced to pay for something, but when they don't have to pay for something, they're more likely to pay for it than other groups are. (Most still won't if they don't have to, but some will, in a much higher percentage than users from more mainstream OS's). I think they're also much more likely to do without than to pirate. Of course, it's easy for people to rationalize piracy in their head -- it has DRM, it's too expensive, the company is evil, et cetera. But I think Linux users are much more likely than other operating system users to do without rather than pirate. OTOH, OSX users are probably more likely to pay for things than do without. I don't think the Android/iOS ecosystems have shaken out enough to make broad generalizations yet. Myself, I'm definitely a "Linux" style user. I've purchased a few Android apps, but all of them have very usable free editions. Typically, all the paid version does is remove the advertising. Removing advertising is not worth $5 to me, but I sometimes buy the premium version anyways.
- roel_v 16y ago
  The cynic in me would say that Linux pirate less because there's nothing to pirate >:) but I do agree with your overall assessment.
_delirium 16y ago
Some may be unwillingness to pay, but when it comes to user experience, proprietary apps (paid or not) have never fit in that well either. Long before "app stores" became common on other platforms, users of at least Debian-based distributions (and a few others) have been grabbing most of their software from an appstore-like interface from their distro: you click on the app in synaptic and it installs, configures, and someone is responsible for ensuring it plays nice with the rest of the system. Similar story for, say, FreeBSD ports. If you want software not in the repository, it is usually a much worse user experience. You get some static binary with a .sh install script, which wants to install in /opt/ or something, doesn't add itself to the distro's menu system, doesn't integrate with the settings manager, your default browser, etc., and generally is a pain in the ass. Even true for no-money proprietary apps, e.g. getting icc on my system was a lot more annoying than getting gcc or llvm on it, at least last time I tried.

drblast 16y ago

It's hard to draw conclusions about the desktop Linux market since it's so vanishingly small. I'd happily buy games for Linux. But I don't normally buy games at all; I buy maybe one a year. If I'm a typical case, a company could produce a game and fail financially even though they've captured most of the market.