Totally ignoring the developers POV is not healthy either. Something matching the quality of Excel/Final Cut/Photoshop/90% of games/(lots of my favorite misc.

Totally ignoring the developers POV is not healthy either. Something matching the quality of Excel/Final Cut/Photoshop/90% of games/(lots of my favorite misc. iPad/Mac apps) does not exist in the FOSS world because they have been built on millions of hours of work (and not only by developers, but people spanning many industries and skillsets), which needs payment. In the only FOSS model, huge classes of software (e.g a AAA game) simply won't exist because they will be economically impossible. There's TONS of software requiring cross-domain teams to build, that is unglamorous and unfun to build/maintain, and those kinds of things don't get built to free. This whole purist FOSS model dates back to a very different time that honestly makes no sense today. In fact by your argument, we can extend to many other things that should be completely open source and free. There should be no need for any intellectual property - the proprietary ingredients and manufacturing processes of Coke (and 80% of everything else in a grocery store) should be free (how can I trust whats in it otherwise?), the complete schematics of every car and airplane should be open (how will I know its safe otherwise?), the innards of every piece of electronic that could conceivably contain a mic/speaker/GPS should be free (what if they track me?). You think this would lead to a utopia of free and awesome stuff. I think it would lead to 90% of that stuff never being built in the first place. I guess you are one of those purists who somehow uses ONLY FOSS software and is satisfied with it so I won't argue further. To me and many others the quality and breadth of commercial software is orders of magnitude better than free software, and we recognize that's because we pay people to work on it, even if that work is not fun enough to do for free.