4 ms·

This, but for businesses. Companies should try to avoid e.g. paying something like $5000 per seat to license AutoCAD; instead the consumers of that particular

This, but for businesses. Companies should try to avoid e.g. paying something like $5000 per seat to license AutoCAD; instead the consumers of that particular type of software should work cooperatively to fund developers who will build a program with the required features and then release it as free or open software.

jiggy2011 13y ago
The problem is of course how to prevent free riding. Why not just let my competitors throw their money at producing a high quality free CAD system while I just sit here and reap the benefits.
- davidw 13y ago
  Exactly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_prob... It's also a 'coordination problem'. If I take the time to make something that is ready to buy, that's very easy for end users, rather than trying to coordinate a bunch of people to sit around and wait for something to be created.
- bd_at_rivenhill 13y ago
  To me, the problem of free riders is irrelevant if you end up spending less on quality software; hopefully others will step up and help pay for improvements but it seems unlikely that this will become an issue that significantly tilts the competitive balance.
_Simon 13y ago
And in the meantime, how do these companies actually work? What happens when requirements change? What happens with bugs?
- bd_at_rivenhill 13y ago
  As for how companies work in the meantime, there are packages out there that can do the basics; in the CAD space, I've been able to achieve a fair bit with OpenSCAD, believe it or not. I chose this package because it feels more like programming shapes than drawing them with a mouse, but I wish that it had more features. As for requirements and bug patches, there are already companies out there using business models that are some variant of having "customers" pay specifically for features they want and also pay to expedite patches for bugs that affect them.

jiggy2011 13y ago

The problem is of course how to prevent free riding. Why not just let my competitors throw their money at producing a high quality free CAD system while I just sit here and reap the benefits.

davidw 13y ago
Exactly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_prob... It's also a 'coordination problem'. If I take the time to make something that is ready to buy, that's very easy for end users, rather than trying to coordinate a bunch of people to sit around and wait for something to be created.
bd_at_rivenhill 13y ago
To me, the problem of free riders is irrelevant if you end up spending less on quality software; hopefully others will step up and help pay for improvements but it seems unlikely that this will become an issue that significantly tilts the competitive balance.

_Simon 13y ago

And in the meantime, how do these companies actually work? What happens when requirements change? What happens with bugs?

bd_at_rivenhill 13y ago
As for how companies work in the meantime, there are packages out there that can do the basics; in the CAD space, I've been able to achieve a fair bit with OpenSCAD, believe it or not. I chose this package because it feels more like programming shapes than drawing them with a mouse, but I wish that it had more features. As for requirements and bug patches, there are already companies out there using business models that are some variant of having "customers" pay specifically for features they want and also pay to expedite patches for bugs that affect them.