3 ms·

To be entirely fair, he isn't exactly making money hand over fist now either. It seems assuming that somebody should make money off something as trivial as a we

by tikhonj 15y ago

To be entirely fair, he isn't exactly making money hand over fist now either. It seems assuming that somebody should make money off something as trivial as a weather app isn't necessarily warranted. However, there is actually a way he could have made money: if somebody wanted a weather app, they could have hired him to write it. This could plausibly either be a carrier seeking to make their phone more attractive or whatever service provides the weather data seeking to make it more accessible. On the one hand, the amount he could possibly make from something like this is limited; on the other hand, the risk is also limited. The problem with your argument is that you're starting with the assumption that a weather app--particularly one which, I assume, does not get its own data--should be worth a significant amount of money. Just because it would not necessarily be practical to sell the app does not me it would be impractical to make a living as a programmer.

brc 15y ago
No, the weather app uses data from publicly funded sources. In essence, you're paying for the convenience and the UI over the free version of the same data on the internet. That's valuable, up to a certain point, but not $50 valuable. In this instance, I know, because I have that same app.
roel_v 15y ago
So let me summarize: the guy says not all software should be free and that he wants to make money, you dismiss it with 'oh he's just stuck in old ways of thinking and he should find other ways to make money', I ask how, and then you say maybe he just shouldn't make money at all? That's just putting the cart before the horse - starting at a fundamentalist position and coming to conclusions that are completely out of whack with reality. Nobody will pay the 15k or whatever it costs to have a custom app developed just for a weather app, even if people find it useful. So, the traditional (and common sense) model was to split the costs over all people who would be interested in such an app. The developer would take the risk, develop and market it, and people would pay for it; and once the development costs were covered, the profit was for the developer. Simple and, if I may say, quite reasonable. But now you come and start with an assumption that the app should be free, then the business becomes untenable and the app won't be developed in the first place, and you say that maybe that's how it's supposed to be? How does that make sense?
- tikhonj 15y ago
  I think you are willfully misrepresenting my arguments. First, my initial post had two points: one, his argument is entirely fallacious and two, free software can and does work. I never claimed anything about all software having to be free or even that "he's stuck in old ways of thinking..." (which really sounds like a personal attack more than anything). Secondly, my point about money was based on the fact that, in the same article, he admitted to being in the red. If he is losing money on this model, the assumption that any reasonable model will lead to his making money is unwarranted. Finally, I don't see why nobody would pay to have a weather app. Plenty of companies give such things away for free right now; I see no reason it would not be carried over to Android. For an example, just search for "weather" on Google. While this is not open source, it is free so from an economic stand-point it is almost equivalent. Additionally, I could definitely see somebody like Samsung funding this in order to add a "feature" to their phone. Besides, there are actually several free and open source weather widgets for KDE, so it's clearly practical to have them. On a completely unrelated note, there really seems to be something about the free software movement that engenders straw man arguments. Perhaps some of its supporters are too zealous, or maybe the arguments behind it are insufficiently clear. Or maybe it's just that most people don't really understand what it's all about.

by tikhonj 15y ago

brc 15y ago

No, the weather app uses data from publicly funded sources. In essence, you're paying for the convenience and the UI over the free version of the same data on the internet. That's valuable, up to a certain point, but not $50 valuable. In this instance, I know, because I have that same app.

roel_v 15y ago

So let me summarize: the guy says not all software should be free and that he wants to make money, you dismiss it with 'oh he's just stuck in old ways of thinking and he should find other ways to make money', I ask how, and then you say maybe he just shouldn't make money at all? That's just putting the cart before the horse - starting at a fundamentalist position and coming to conclusions that are completely out of whack with reality. Nobody will pay the 15k or whatever it costs to have a custom app developed just for a weather app, even if people find it useful. So, the traditional (and common sense) model was to split the costs over all people who would be interested in such an app. The developer would take the risk, develop and market it, and people would pay for it; and once the development costs were covered, the profit was for the developer. Simple and, if I may say, quite reasonable. But now you come and start with an assumption that the app should be free, then the business becomes untenable and the app won't be developed in the first place, and you say that maybe that's how it's supposed to be? How does that make sense?

tikhonj 15y ago
I think you are willfully misrepresenting my arguments. First, my initial post had two points: one, his argument is entirely fallacious and two, free software can and does work. I never claimed anything about all software having to be free or even that "he's stuck in old ways of thinking..." (which really sounds like a personal attack more than anything). Secondly, my point about money was based on the fact that, in the same article, he admitted to being in the red. If he is losing money on this model, the assumption that any reasonable model will lead to his making money is unwarranted. Finally, I don't see why nobody would pay to have a weather app. Plenty of companies give such things away for free right now; I see no reason it would not be carried over to Android. For an example, just search for "weather" on Google. While this is not open source, it is free so from an economic stand-point it is almost equivalent. Additionally, I could definitely see somebody like Samsung funding this in order to add a "feature" to their phone. Besides, there are actually several free and open source weather widgets for KDE, so it's clearly practical to have them. On a completely unrelated note, there really seems to be something about the free software movement that engenders straw man arguments. Perhaps some of its supporters are too zealous, or maybe the arguments behind it are insufficiently clear. Or maybe it's just that most people don't really understand what it's all about.