3 ms·
> it's pretty much an "alternate universe" situation Yup. In the early days, hardly anyone paid for software (as such); when you paid for your mainframe, the s
by denton-scratch 3y ago
> it's pretty much an "alternate universe" situation
Yup. In the early days, hardly anyone paid for software (as such); when you paid for your mainframe, the software, complete with source, was bundled. You also got training, and engineers to help you use the thing. When hardware became cheap, everyone and his dog started writing software, just to learn (or play) with the new hardware.
It's very hard to envisage a scenario where cheap, powerful machinery can't spawn a community of hackers producing free (or very cheap) applications. If your counterfactual scenario contains internal contradictions, it isn't really possible to draw useful conclusions about how that scenario might develop.
- imiric 3y agoSure, but the point of the HBS paper isn't to paint a realistic picture. It's to imagine a hypothetical world where OSS doesn't exist, in order to derive a monetary value of its worth. I agree with this article that the actual values might not be realistic, but it's a good thought exercise that highlights the importance of something most of us take for granted. Arguing about the methodology used to arrive at those numbers is missing the point, IMO.