> Whether we like to admit it or not, software developers tend to build products for other developers, no matter how much they try the end result will end up ap

> Whether we like to admit it or not, software developers tend to build products for other developers, no matter how much they try the end result will end up appealing more to developers than the general population. This is illustrated by the weak show of Linux on the desktop, for years they've tried but not much has changed. I'd like to think if we ever got a sizable enough install base on an open technology, the raw user base would sustain development through bug bounties and feature sponsoring. I still believe the most pure form of software development is someone paying you to fix their problems on a public codebase. They want it fixed, they pay to see it happen, and everyone benefits. The problem, though, is that almost all consumer facing software doesn't see fundage through its user base - Photoshop, for example, is probably one of the most pirated pieces of software in history. It makes money through businesses buying business contracts for tens of thousands or millions of dollars to deploy it in the enterprise because they can't risk the gray space in buying one copy and sharing it around the office. And businesses aren't going to be charitable to fund the development of their tools, even if they would be saving tons of money over paying out corporate contracts to the likes of Adobe.