3 ms·

I think it's cognitive dissonance ( maybe I'm thinking of the wrong phenomenom ) that you 'see more and more of [these people]' every day. It makes this seem li

I think it's cognitive dissonance ( maybe I'm thinking of the wrong phenomenom ) that you 'see more and more of [these people]' every day. It makes this seem like a big bad trend, when really it's been happening forever and it just happens to support your point. Lots of people release ad-supported free software, not because they want to turn a profit, but because they don't want a net loss. They aren't comfortable with asking for outright donations, but a small cash flow offsets the costs of serving the download and docs, and a little forum for users. If you don't like software with ads, or software that bundles other software, that's fine. Don't use it. But I think it hurts free (as in beer) software development as a whole when you demonize any attempt to cover costs like this.

darklajid 14y ago
You're mixing things up. I like software with ads (well, sorta. CAN you like software with ads?). I don't run AdBlock on all my machines. I have "free" ad-supported Android apps. Bundling ads in an application is not the same thing as installing utter, total bullshit. Your point is still very weak in my books, because you haven't explained in half a sentence why someone would like to release software as 'free' and still make money off it. The notion that this certain someone is too shy to ask for donations is .. weird. Believing that it's a viable alternative to bundle software that the end user with almost 100% certainty DOES. NOT. WANT. - seems crazy to me. So many solutions. Shareware. Donationware. Free/Premium models. Just .. not releasing a software for free and putting a price tag on it, even if just the 'app' style 99 cents. Installing crapware, toolbars, switching browser search engines and homepages etc. is an attempt to cover cost that is absolutely demonic.
- alanctgardner2 14y ago
  I attempted it pretty well in the last post, maybe you missed it. Free software costs money to host and maintain. If you want to break even, you need some long-tail income source to cover hosting, etc. That was a full sentence, happy? People who release free software are often not hustlers. Hell, if they had business sense, maybe they'd make it a paid product. If you don't feel comfortable asking for money in exchange for your software, ads and bundled installs offer a much lower friction way to cover your costs. Charging 99 cents for a desktop app is ridiculous right now, although maybe the windows and mac app stores will change that. Either way, collecting a few dollars per user directly is a huge pain in the ass. If these companies did what they're supposed to do, it'd be more about discovery, and less about shoving downloads down your throat. I had this argument about IVRs yesterday; how do you make a good product in a field people hate? If everyone shouts down the notion of an IVR, who's going to bother making a good one? If everyone is automatically against bundled downloads, the best, least sleazy company in the world wouldn't stand a chance.

darklajid 14y ago

You're mixing things up. I like software with ads (well, sorta. CAN you like software with ads?). I don't run AdBlock on all my machines. I have "free" ad-supported Android apps. Bundling ads in an application is not the same thing as installing utter, total bullshit. Your point is still very weak in my books, because you haven't explained in half a sentence why someone would like to release software as 'free' and still make money off it. The notion that this certain someone is too shy to ask for donations is .. weird. Believing that it's a viable alternative to bundle software that the end user with almost 100% certainty DOES. NOT. WANT. - seems crazy to me. So many solutions. Shareware. Donationware. Free/Premium models. Just .. not releasing a software for free and putting a price tag on it, even if just the 'app' style 99 cents. Installing crapware, toolbars, switching browser search engines and homepages etc. is an attempt to cover cost that is absolutely demonic.

alanctgardner2 14y ago
I attempted it pretty well in the last post, maybe you missed it. Free software costs money to host and maintain. If you want to break even, you need some long-tail income source to cover hosting, etc. That was a full sentence, happy? People who release free software are often not hustlers. Hell, if they had business sense, maybe they'd make it a paid product. If you don't feel comfortable asking for money in exchange for your software, ads and bundled installs offer a much lower friction way to cover your costs. Charging 99 cents for a desktop app is ridiculous right now, although maybe the windows and mac app stores will change that. Either way, collecting a few dollars per user directly is a huge pain in the ass. If these companies did what they're supposed to do, it'd be more about discovery, and less about shoving downloads down your throat. I had this argument about IVRs yesterday; how do you make a good product in a field people hate? If everyone shouts down the notion of an IVR, who's going to bother making a good one? If everyone is automatically against bundled downloads, the best, least sleazy company in the world wouldn't stand a chance.