Given some of the recent HN hubub over open source contribution (projects complaining about rude users, users complaining that they aren't seeing features they

Given some of the recent HN hubub over open source contribution (projects complaining about rude users, users complaining that they aren't seeing features they wish), I can't help but notice similar strains here in the free with ads-freemium-pay world of online services. Users expect free things to act like full paid products and services including support and a recognition of their needs; free product makers understandably want to monetize their services somehow and migrate towards approaches that minimize costs and potentially alienate groups of users. (Before we pull out the old canard that "yes, but you can add code to the open source project" to belie my comparison, that "feature" doesn't help or impact the zillions of non-programmer users of various tools and services out there who are using it for free, can't contribute via code, but expect to be heard because they are users (and yes, they can contribute translations, docs, etc but again, most don't).) I think this is a never ending conflict: users will always want free stuff. Back in the 80s, packaged software got hammered on BBS forums (what we used instead of HN) for making users pay for upgrades, even minor version numbers. Users assumed that if they paid once, all upgrades should be free, even if they delivered new functionality not originally mentioned for the purchased version. Companies needed recurring revenue to pay for increasingly complex development costs between major versions (well, and some were just greedy). And so it goes. Even if some ideas don't stick, this conflict has driven innovations in micropayments, ad targeting, and even sponsorships. So, if nothing else, it's a fun fight to watch.