8 ms·

We've found the same thing with other software we make. The free users and those charitable organizations and schools we give free licenses to, are the least "n

We've found the same thing with other software we make. The free users and those charitable organizations and schools we give free licenses to, are the least "nice" in their technical support queries. Odd that.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BelenusMordred 6y ago
People in open source are horrendously bad to each other, this likely won't change for a long time. Make someone pay for software and they always treat you far better. I'm sure there's some cognitive reason/explanation for this.
- imperio59 6y ago
  If you get something for free then it has no value. Remember the last time you got an item for free. You probably didn't worry too much about it, because it didn't cost you anything. You didn't treat it that carefully. Compare that to something you bought for yourself, that you had to work hard for. You probably took a lot of care for it. You probably really paid attention to ensure it didn't break. I feel like this is the mentality difference. Something free = no value = we can treat it badly. Something not free = it has value = we are more careful with it. The nicest customers I have for my Saas product are also the ones who have the largest accounts. The ones that pay $15 a month for a single user on the cheapest account are always the ones asking for a list of like 50 new features to be implemented yesterday or "the product just isn't gonna work for us". Yea ok, because your $15 buys you a right to own my entire roadmap... not.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    I think you’re partly right but it’s not the whole story. People (not all but many) notoriously treat service/public facing workers horribly. The same people also treat those workers’ supervisors with more respect, or at least with less aggressive behavior. They’re paying for whatever product or service they went in for. It’s not because something is free, it’s because they’ve designated certain people as servants. I think there’s a pernicious attitude that the “free” part of open source is an entitlement to service, and that the people providing it are servants.
  - Cd00d 6y ago
    Interesting. I don't know if free = no value. Some of my most cherished things are gifts of relatively low replacement value. I think products do have the ability to make us feel an emotional response, even when free?
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      I was going to write the exact same thing. It's even more extreme, I generally have much more problems parting with a gift, even if it is genuinely useless and holds no particular emotional value to me, just because it was given to me.
  - Agentlien 6y ago
    I don't agree with the generalisation to private possessions. Apart from gifts, as mentioned by another commenter, I often seem to value things higher and be more careful with them when I know they're valuable and I got them without having to pay.
    - fwip 6y ago
      How do you measure the value, though?
      - Agentlien 6y ago
        Setting aside emotional value I guess monetary value is a good estimate. An example would be when I, through a misunderstanding, received two copies of a $16 promotional Magic card for free from my local game store. I tried explaining that they gave me something way more valuable than the free 30 card deck I had a code for. They just threw in that free deck as well and didn't want to hear it. The cards have since decreased in value somewhat, and I have other much more valuable cards, but the story of how I acquired them somehow make those cards feel very valuable to me.
    - auggierose 6y ago
      Hahaha, but how do you know they are valuable? Maybe because normally, you would have had to pay for it? So you are saying, you are a freeloader?
  - darkwater 6y ago
    It might make sense but personally I tend to complain and ask for improvements if it's something I paid for, because hell, I PAID for it, I want it to work! If it's free as in beer, I care less about the quality (usually I thank the authors for releasing it for free).
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    > If you get something for free then it has no value. Do you pay for the oxygen you breathe?
  - conjectures 6y ago
    Or, in a competitive market price = marginal cost of production and the marginal cost be 0. Value to customers is a separate thing.
- satyrnein 6y ago
  Does making someone pay change that specific person's behavior? Or is it that raising your price just filters out certain people? Perhaps the remaining people would have been nice at any price?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- cycomanic 6y ago
  I suspect this is related to the phenomenon that people often quite strongly need to justify their purchasing decisions, leading to fanboism (I know that free systems also have fanboys but I think there is a difference in the type). So if people made a monetary investment they have the emotional need to justify to themselves and others that they made a good decision (hence you talk positively about that purchase), however somehow when they use something free, people don't feel that emotional need.
- jeromenerf 6y ago
  > Make someone pay for software and they always treat you far better. Indirect correlation if you ask me. "Consumer" users are most likely to behave as consumers, ie not being interested with the project but their work getting done. Open source distribution channels are often independent from the actual project management, opening the possibility for varying degrees of quality. Paid for bugs are more irritating than free bugs. Consumer support is rare for "paid for" software (good luck getting support from Apple radar, google services, iOS App Store ...) where open source projects provide forums, issue trackers ...
harry8 6y ago
There will be many explanations. One explanation not seen here yet: People working for companies who pay are more likely to be well paid and both of (a) technically competent and (b) having empathy and some amount of charm as qualifying criteria to get that well paid gig. It's no slam-dunk but it's more likely. People who work for organisations who don't pay are likely to be paid a little less and include some who are working a second choice gig because of some deficiencies in (a) or (b) or both. (L. is great but difficult to work with and we'll never find someone like that to hire to replace them.) As individuals they may improve their abilities in time, possibly dramatically too. The young, arrogant hotheads, sheesh. None of us were ever like that. Obviously... The paying can be a fuzzy select for kinds of people who behave in particular ways rather than the paying itself causing particular behavior in a given person.
kstenerud 6y ago
The less your customers are paying you, the less they'll value you.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

BelenusMordred 6y ago

People in open source are horrendously bad to each other, this likely won't change for a long time. Make someone pay for software and they always treat you far better. I'm sure there's some cognitive reason/explanation for this.

imperio59 6y ago
If you get something for free then it has no value. Remember the last time you got an item for free. You probably didn't worry too much about it, because it didn't cost you anything. You didn't treat it that carefully. Compare that to something you bought for yourself, that you had to work hard for. You probably took a lot of care for it. You probably really paid attention to ensure it didn't break. I feel like this is the mentality difference. Something free = no value = we can treat it badly. Something not free = it has value = we are more careful with it. The nicest customers I have for my Saas product are also the ones who have the largest accounts. The ones that pay $15 a month for a single user on the cheapest account are always the ones asking for a list of like 50 new features to be implemented yesterday or "the product just isn't gonna work for us". Yea ok, because your $15 buys you a right to own my entire roadmap... not.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  I think you’re partly right but it’s not the whole story. People (not all but many) notoriously treat service/public facing workers horribly. The same people also treat those workers’ supervisors with more respect, or at least with less aggressive behavior. They’re paying for whatever product or service they went in for. It’s not because something is free, it’s because they’ve designated certain people as servants. I think there’s a pernicious attitude that the “free” part of open source is an entitlement to service, and that the people providing it are servants.
- Cd00d 6y ago
  Interesting. I don't know if free = no value. Some of my most cherished things are gifts of relatively low replacement value. I think products do have the ability to make us feel an emotional response, even when free?
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    I was going to write the exact same thing. It's even more extreme, I generally have much more problems parting with a gift, even if it is genuinely useless and holds no particular emotional value to me, just because it was given to me.
- Agentlien 6y ago
  I don't agree with the generalisation to private possessions. Apart from gifts, as mentioned by another commenter, I often seem to value things higher and be more careful with them when I know they're valuable and I got them without having to pay.
  - fwip 6y ago
    How do you measure the value, though?
    - Agentlien 6y ago
      Setting aside emotional value I guess monetary value is a good estimate. An example would be when I, through a misunderstanding, received two copies of a $16 promotional Magic card for free from my local game store. I tried explaining that they gave me something way more valuable than the free 30 card deck I had a code for. They just threw in that free deck as well and didn't want to hear it. The cards have since decreased in value somewhat, and I have other much more valuable cards, but the story of how I acquired them somehow make those cards feel very valuable to me.
  - auggierose 6y ago
    Hahaha, but how do you know they are valuable? Maybe because normally, you would have had to pay for it? So you are saying, you are a freeloader?
- darkwater 6y ago
  It might make sense but personally I tend to complain and ask for improvements if it's something I paid for, because hell, I PAID for it, I want it to work! If it's free as in beer, I care less about the quality (usually I thank the authors for releasing it for free).
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > If you get something for free then it has no value. Do you pay for the oxygen you breathe?
- conjectures 6y ago
  Or, in a competitive market price = marginal cost of production and the marginal cost be 0. Value to customers is a separate thing.
satyrnein 6y ago
Does making someone pay change that specific person's behavior? Or is it that raising your price just filters out certain people? Perhaps the remaining people would have been nice at any price?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cycomanic 6y ago
I suspect this is related to the phenomenon that people often quite strongly need to justify their purchasing decisions, leading to fanboism (I know that free systems also have fanboys but I think there is a difference in the type). So if people made a monetary investment they have the emotional need to justify to themselves and others that they made a good decision (hence you talk positively about that purchase), however somehow when they use something free, people don't feel that emotional need.
jeromenerf 6y ago
> Make someone pay for software and they always treat you far better. Indirect correlation if you ask me. "Consumer" users are most likely to behave as consumers, ie not being interested with the project but their work getting done. Open source distribution channels are often independent from the actual project management, opening the possibility for varying degrees of quality. Paid for bugs are more irritating than free bugs. Consumer support is rare for "paid for" software (good luck getting support from Apple radar, google services, iOS App Store ...) where open source projects provide forums, issue trackers ...

harry8 6y ago

There will be many explanations. One explanation not seen here yet: People working for companies who pay are more likely to be well paid and both of (a) technically competent and (b) having empathy and some amount of charm as qualifying criteria to get that well paid gig. It's no slam-dunk but it's more likely. People who work for organisations who don't pay are likely to be paid a little less and include some who are working a second choice gig because of some deficiencies in (a) or (b) or both. (L. is great but difficult to work with and we'll never find someone like that to hire to replace them.) As individuals they may improve their abilities in time, possibly dramatically too. The young, arrogant hotheads, sheesh. None of us were ever like that. Obviously... The paying can be a fuzzy select for kinds of people who behave in particular ways rather than the paying itself causing particular behavior in a given person.

kstenerud 6y ago

The less your customers are paying you, the less they'll value you.