5 ms·

I know this may sound like a blasphemy and anachronism rolled into one, but why can we not return to purchasing a copy of software? All of a sudden, the incenti

I know this may sound like a blasphemy and anachronism rolled into one, but why can we not return to purchasing a copy of software? All of a sudden, the incentives to deliver 'monetizable' product are gone, because you already got your money. Or that does not jibe with continuous rent seeking?

hombre_fatal 6y ago
> why can we not return to purchasing a copy of software? Because your competitors are free and users expect free and we have a culture stuck in a rut of "everything is free" because ads don't have them taking money out of their wallet. Not every software is in a niche where they can flip the switch back into a premium model and have a good outcome. If Firefox did it, most of us would stop using it. Maybe Firefox is at a point where that's a boat worth rocking, but it certainly isn't obvious nor without fatal risk.
- soulofmischief 6y ago
  Besides, privacy and safety online should be available to all, regardless of financial status.
- mrec 6y ago
  But, as we lament every time this topic comes up, it's not even possible to donate to Firefox. I don't know whether that would bring in significant cash, but it's frustrating that the option isn't there.
  - sfink 6y ago
    It would be possible, but it would involve some major legal wrangling, and there's a good chance that it wouldn't pay for itself and/or would tie Mozilla's hands in problematic ways. The best route still appears to be paying for whatever paid services Mozilla comes out with (VPN, Pocket, ...?) even if you don't use them. I don't know if a "pay what you like" option would be problematic? (Regulators watch pretty closely when you have 100s of millions of dollars of annual income.)
    - mrec 6y ago
      > The best route still appears to be paying for whatever paid services Mozilla comes out with (VPN, Pocket, ...?) Maybe. There still doesn't seem to be any guarantee that money raised this way would go toward Firefox development. With zero pricing signals it's very hard to express the "you have one job" frustration that many of us are feeling about Mozilla these days.
- wussboy 6y ago
  Huge businesses are built on the freemium model. Firefox would only gain from embracing the same.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    Though they have been trying to do that, freemium meaning the core product is free and they try to make ancillary features compelling enough for you to pay for them. Examples: Pocket and their new VPN service.
    - dxdm 6y ago
      > Examples: Pocket Wait, pocket is a Mozilla thing? When that first popped up in Firefox, I just assumed they partnered with some business and sold out a little chunk of my data. Now that I'm reading up on it, I see that it's more complicated. Apparently, Mozilla Corp _bought_ Pocket, which used to be Read It Later. Which I had been using at some point before. Wow. Some better communication around all that from Mozilla's side, and I might have given Pocket a chance when they rolled it out.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vineyardmike 6y ago
Also because many things that people want require a cloud and clouds are ongoing expenses not one time expenses.
- rhizome 6y ago
  Eh, computingwise, the things that people want used to "require" a floppy or CDROM drive. The Cloud isn't a natural law, it's a stepping stone to a future which may be more service based, or more, say, appliance-based. We don't know which. Sure, people with business interests will try to push the idea of what constitutes a valid option in various directions, but as someone more thoughtful than me once said, "prediction is hard, especially if it's about the future," and as another thoughtful person said, "even The Future has a future."
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Businesses that sold software as opposed to subscriptions also had ongoing expenses. Employees, office space, etc. That seems like a cop-out.
theamk 6y ago
Not with the browser -- those have to constantly evolve, both for the security fixes as well as for the new web features. Plus, as the other commenter says, I am not going to recommend Firefox to my non-technical friends if it requires non-trivial amount of money.
sgarman 6y ago
Certainly there is a lot of rent seeking going on but I don't think all subscription models fall into that category. I think subscriptions to software can do a lot to bring in line users needs with company needs. Especially around security of purchased software - if there are no profits to be made as the software is already sold why patch security issues or bug fixes, your only goal is to sell the next one.
majani 6y ago
The math of free vs paid has been long settled. If a product can get hundreds of millions of free users from "Western" countries, free trumps any paid model. Firefox still has 250 million users, so free still makes the most sense.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

> why can we not return to purchasing a copy of software? Because your competitors are free and users expect free and we have a culture stuck in a rut of "everything is free" because ads don't have them taking money out of their wallet. Not every software is in a niche where they can flip the switch back into a premium model and have a good outcome. If Firefox did it, most of us would stop using it. Maybe Firefox is at a point where that's a boat worth rocking, but it certainly isn't obvious nor without fatal risk.

soulofmischief 6y ago
Besides, privacy and safety online should be available to all, regardless of financial status.
mrec 6y ago
But, as we lament every time this topic comes up, it's not even possible to donate to Firefox. I don't know whether that would bring in significant cash, but it's frustrating that the option isn't there.
- sfink 6y ago
  It would be possible, but it would involve some major legal wrangling, and there's a good chance that it wouldn't pay for itself and/or would tie Mozilla's hands in problematic ways. The best route still appears to be paying for whatever paid services Mozilla comes out with (VPN, Pocket, ...?) even if you don't use them. I don't know if a "pay what you like" option would be problematic? (Regulators watch pretty closely when you have 100s of millions of dollars of annual income.)
  - mrec 6y ago
    > The best route still appears to be paying for whatever paid services Mozilla comes out with (VPN, Pocket, ...?) Maybe. There still doesn't seem to be any guarantee that money raised this way would go toward Firefox development. With zero pricing signals it's very hard to express the "you have one job" frustration that many of us are feeling about Mozilla these days.
wussboy 6y ago
Huge businesses are built on the freemium model. Firefox would only gain from embracing the same.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  Though they have been trying to do that, freemium meaning the core product is free and they try to make ancillary features compelling enough for you to pay for them. Examples: Pocket and their new VPN service.
  - dxdm 6y ago
    > Examples: Pocket Wait, pocket is a Mozilla thing? When that first popped up in Firefox, I just assumed they partnered with some business and sold out a little chunk of my data. Now that I'm reading up on it, I see that it's more complicated. Apparently, Mozilla Corp _bought_ Pocket, which used to be Read It Later. Which I had been using at some point before. Wow. Some better communication around all that from Mozilla's side, and I might have given Pocket a chance when they rolled it out.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

vineyardmike 6y ago

Also because many things that people want require a cloud and clouds are ongoing expenses not one time expenses.

rhizome 6y ago
Eh, computingwise, the things that people want used to "require" a floppy or CDROM drive. The Cloud isn't a natural law, it's a stepping stone to a future which may be more service based, or more, say, appliance-based. We don't know which. Sure, people with business interests will try to push the idea of what constitutes a valid option in various directions, but as someone more thoughtful than me once said, "prediction is hard, especially if it's about the future," and as another thoughtful person said, "even The Future has a future."
Karunamon 6y ago
Businesses that sold software as opposed to subscriptions also had ongoing expenses. Employees, office space, etc. That seems like a cop-out.

theamk 6y ago

Not with the browser -- those have to constantly evolve, both for the security fixes as well as for the new web features. Plus, as the other commenter says, I am not going to recommend Firefox to my non-technical friends if it requires non-trivial amount of money.

sgarman 6y ago

Certainly there is a lot of rent seeking going on but I don't think all subscription models fall into that category. I think subscriptions to software can do a lot to bring in line users needs with company needs. Especially around security of purchased software - if there are no profits to be made as the software is already sold why patch security issues or bug fixes, your only goal is to sell the next one.

majani 6y ago

The math of free vs paid has been long settled. If a product can get hundreds of millions of free users from "Western" countries, free trumps any paid model. Firefox still has 250 million users, so free still makes the most sense.