Why Linux being free (as in beer) doesn't matter / Why does everyone pirate software?
Double - Feature entry for today!
First, if you have an interest in computing (especially Linux and whatnot), Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of ZDNet has written two must - read articles on things the Linux community doesn't understand about the average computer user (first / second). While I don't agree with everything in either article, some good points are made, and these are used as a springboard to a commentary by Dave Gutteridge, where he argues that for most people Windows is free, and the widespread piracy of software is one major hurdle in Linux's attempt at gaining a larger market share, a hurdle that few are presently acknowledging.
There's a lot of interesting points made by Mr. Gutteridge, but the main thing it made me think about was how did software piracy get this big? Why do so many people have so little trouble accepting and distributing software illegally when they wouldn't even think of doing the same thing with a similarly - priced item from a different industry? This brings me to the second part of the entry. Now, before I start listing theories I should say that I'm no angel here, but am trying to change for the better (more on that later). While it's not really discussed in the commentary, I think one major issue is the public's perception of the effort involved in making software. I would argue that even in 2007, the view many people have of the effort needed to create a piece of software is extremely uneducated. That's not to say that software lends itself to an educated viewpoint - society still mostly adheres to the view that the cost or value of something is based on the materials it's made of, and the quality of the physical craftsmanship put into creating it. For software, that whole viewpoint is out the window. All the physical items you have when you buy an application are the install media, and any printed manuals or other documentation. Thus, it's not all that surprising that people wonder why things like Microsoft Office cost hundreds or thousands or dollars. And God help them if they ever deal with scientific software - Matlab toolboxes are sometimes more than a hundred bucks on their own.
So, is there any way of educating the public as to why software (heaven forbid) should cost money? An experience I had last year may give some insight into this.
As some of you may know, I attended Apple's World Wide Developer Conference last year. At said conference Wil Shipley, co-founder of Delicious Monster (the people behind Delicious Library, a cataloging program I use that some of you have probably seen) gave a talk at one of the student events. This seems pretty unimportant so far, but after I found out about his application and tried it out for a bit, I was faced with the decision to either search out a h4x method to get the full version, or simply pay the $40something USD. At that point I was weighing the pros and cons, and a neat thing happened - I remembered Mr. Shipley from the conference, and decided to purchase the software, as stealing it meant I was stealing from *him*. Not a faceless corporation or the magical code fairies, but an actual person with a name and face. That right there is something I think the general public needs to know - that *actual* people work on software, and work pretty hard on it, too. Would it change anything? Maybe, perhaps not. But I'm not quite sure if everyone out there realizes this simple fact.
As for me, I'm trying to be more legitimate in my software dealings. I'll admit this is easier to do if you're a student (for Microsoft products especially), but I'm not finding it *too* difficult thus far. Hooray for iWork '08 being $71! As a final note though, in no way am I advocating that companies should be able to charge whatever they want for software, or that you should be expected to pay for every update / new version / whatever. There are current pricing and retail practices that I view as total scams - tax software being one of the biggest.
First, if you have an interest in computing (especially Linux and whatnot), Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of ZDNet has written two must - read articles on things the Linux community doesn't understand about the average computer user (first / second). While I don't agree with everything in either article, some good points are made, and these are used as a springboard to a commentary by Dave Gutteridge, where he argues that for most people Windows is free, and the widespread piracy of software is one major hurdle in Linux's attempt at gaining a larger market share, a hurdle that few are presently acknowledging.
There's a lot of interesting points made by Mr. Gutteridge, but the main thing it made me think about was how did software piracy get this big? Why do so many people have so little trouble accepting and distributing software illegally when they wouldn't even think of doing the same thing with a similarly - priced item from a different industry? This brings me to the second part of the entry. Now, before I start listing theories I should say that I'm no angel here, but am trying to change for the better (more on that later). While it's not really discussed in the commentary, I think one major issue is the public's perception of the effort involved in making software. I would argue that even in 2007, the view many people have of the effort needed to create a piece of software is extremely uneducated. That's not to say that software lends itself to an educated viewpoint - society still mostly adheres to the view that the cost or value of something is based on the materials it's made of, and the quality of the physical craftsmanship put into creating it. For software, that whole viewpoint is out the window. All the physical items you have when you buy an application are the install media, and any printed manuals or other documentation. Thus, it's not all that surprising that people wonder why things like Microsoft Office cost hundreds or thousands or dollars. And God help them if they ever deal with scientific software - Matlab toolboxes are sometimes more than a hundred bucks on their own.
So, is there any way of educating the public as to why software (heaven forbid) should cost money? An experience I had last year may give some insight into this.
As some of you may know, I attended Apple's World Wide Developer Conference last year. At said conference Wil Shipley, co-founder of Delicious Monster (the people behind Delicious Library, a cataloging program I use that some of you have probably seen) gave a talk at one of the student events. This seems pretty unimportant so far, but after I found out about his application and tried it out for a bit, I was faced with the decision to either search out a h4x method to get the full version, or simply pay the $40something USD. At that point I was weighing the pros and cons, and a neat thing happened - I remembered Mr. Shipley from the conference, and decided to purchase the software, as stealing it meant I was stealing from *him*. Not a faceless corporation or the magical code fairies, but an actual person with a name and face. That right there is something I think the general public needs to know - that *actual* people work on software, and work pretty hard on it, too. Would it change anything? Maybe, perhaps not. But I'm not quite sure if everyone out there realizes this simple fact.
As for me, I'm trying to be more legitimate in my software dealings. I'll admit this is easier to do if you're a student (for Microsoft products especially), but I'm not finding it *too* difficult thus far. Hooray for iWork '08 being $71! As a final note though, in no way am I advocating that companies should be able to charge whatever they want for software, or that you should be expected to pay for every update / new version / whatever. There are current pricing and retail practices that I view as total scams - tax software being one of the biggest.