3 ms·

> What they really mean, is, easy way to make money off unsuspecting people via something that should probably be illegal, and would be in a different context (

> What they really mean, is, easy way to make money off unsuspecting people via something that should probably be illegal, and would be in a different context (i.e. bait and switch). When a service is free I don't think you can say it's a bait and switch when the one offering can no longer afford giving so much away. Even for paid services, there is no guarantee prices won't rise once a contract expires, or at the next billing cycle. Now if they had promised free forever then perhaps a case could be made for false advertising.

pcblues 4y ago
This is an interesting point. If the alternative to charging for a free service is to cancel it, which should one do? This of course is usually a false dichotomy. An alternative is to set it free for an exchange of goodwill and perceived loss of potential monetary value. But hey, that's what a true friendship and family entails. Professional dishonesty is pernicious. Hand back your PR degrees, people, if you want to make the world a better place.
majormajor 4y ago
Should free services be heavily scrutinized as an anti-competitive dirty marketing tactic, then? If you have deeper pockets than your competitor you could bleed them dry by offering it for free until they're dead and then "coincidentally" not being able to afford keeping it free after that. I distrust free services as a consumer at this point, but I think it's unrealistic to expect enough people to do that to keep it from being a way of distorting the market and stifling competition. If it's less of a dirty trick and more of a "shit, we thought we'd figure something out, but we didn't" then I still think there being more scrutiny/regulation around free services could be beneficial purely to push companies away from stupid self-defeating and market-harming business models?
- mulmen 4y ago
  $0.00 is a price like any other. A free service is a special case of the loss leader. How far do you extend this extra scrutiny?
  - brookst 4y ago
    Maybe Linux should be illegal? It’s such an odd position. Like, the age old razors / razor blades model should be illegal? Video game consoles / video games? Subsidizing an initial purchase by charging for ongoing services is so core to our economy that I’m not sure what it would look like to prohibit it.
    - di456 4y ago
      Linux isn't a service
      - ehutch79 4y ago
        Sure it is, just like docker, the code might be free , but there’s plenty of enterprise support contracts. I imagine a lawyer could convince a jury of people who have never heard of hacker news, gnu, etc that this is true.
        di456 4y ago
        Free enterprise support contracts?
        ehutch79 4y ago
        No, the thread stems from above where it's basically indicated that free things should be illegal if there's things being sold off the back of it. The precedent things like this would create could easily be extended to other things. Good lawyers could hold things the OP isn't think about to this standard. Especially if theres a jury uninformed about the topic at hand.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        So not a service, rather software surrounded by unaffiliated services? This post is about the official service part of Docker. To my knowledge there is no official Linux service.
- watwut 4y ago
  > Should free services be heavily scrutinized as an anti-competitive dirty marketing tactic, then? To be fair, it is fairly often an anti-competitive behavior. And we are not better off for it.
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  > Should free services be heavily scrutinized as an anti-competitive dirty marketing tactic, then? Perhaps if you offer a free service, you should be legally required to either post a notice "this service may switch to a paid version at any moment with a 30 days warning", or make a public promise "this service will be provided for free until 2030" (or any other year). You are allowed to increase the year later. In the former case, you could be sued if the notice is deliberately hidden. In the latter case, not providing the free service would be considered a breach of contract.

pcblues 4y ago

This is an interesting point. If the alternative to charging for a free service is to cancel it, which should one do? This of course is usually a false dichotomy. An alternative is to set it free for an exchange of goodwill and perceived loss of potential monetary value. But hey, that's what a true friendship and family entails. Professional dishonesty is pernicious. Hand back your PR degrees, people, if you want to make the world a better place.

majormajor 4y ago

Should free services be heavily scrutinized as an anti-competitive dirty marketing tactic, then? If you have deeper pockets than your competitor you could bleed them dry by offering it for free until they're dead and then "coincidentally" not being able to afford keeping it free after that. I distrust free services as a consumer at this point, but I think it's unrealistic to expect enough people to do that to keep it from being a way of distorting the market and stifling competition. If it's less of a dirty trick and more of a "shit, we thought we'd figure something out, but we didn't" then I still think there being more scrutiny/regulation around free services could be beneficial purely to push companies away from stupid self-defeating and market-harming business models?

mulmen 4y ago
$0.00 is a price like any other. A free service is a special case of the loss leader. How far do you extend this extra scrutiny?
- brookst 4y ago
  Maybe Linux should be illegal? It’s such an odd position. Like, the age old razors / razor blades model should be illegal? Video game consoles / video games? Subsidizing an initial purchase by charging for ongoing services is so core to our economy that I’m not sure what it would look like to prohibit it.
  - di456 4y ago
    Linux isn't a service
    - ehutch79 4y ago
      Sure it is, just like docker, the code might be free , but there’s plenty of enterprise support contracts. I imagine a lawyer could convince a jury of people who have never heard of hacker news, gnu, etc that this is true.
      - di456 4y ago
        Free enterprise support contracts?
        ehutch79 4y ago
        No, the thread stems from above where it's basically indicated that free things should be illegal if there's things being sold off the back of it. The precedent things like this would create could easily be extended to other things. Good lawyers could hold things the OP isn't think about to this standard. Especially if theres a jury uninformed about the topic at hand.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        So not a service, rather software surrounded by unaffiliated services? This post is about the official service part of Docker. To my knowledge there is no official Linux service.
watwut 4y ago
> Should free services be heavily scrutinized as an anti-competitive dirty marketing tactic, then? To be fair, it is fairly often an anti-competitive behavior. And we are not better off for it.
Viliam1234 4y ago
> Should free services be heavily scrutinized as an anti-competitive dirty marketing tactic, then? Perhaps if you offer a free service, you should be legally required to either post a notice "this service may switch to a paid version at any moment with a 30 days warning", or make a public promise "this service will be provided for free until 2030" (or any other year). You are allowed to increase the year later. In the former case, you could be sued if the notice is deliberately hidden. In the latter case, not providing the free service would be considered a breach of contract.