so what you are saying is that when a company, such as Google, actually does make money from open source software, they should give it all up in the name of open source?kind of defeats the purpose don't you think?
> The lack of open source software billionaires is by design. It's part of the intent of open source software -- to balance the scales by devaluing the obscene profit margins that exist in the commercial software business. Duplicating software is about as close to legally printing money as a company can get; profit margins regularly exceed 80 percent.Wow an 80% margin, that would be nice. While it may be the case for particular products like Windows, it certainly isn't the case for most commercial software. I don't even think we can claim an 80% margin on developer cost alone pretending that we don't need Accounts, HR, Sales, Marketing, Implementation, Training, Support, Documentation, QA, R&D and Management, nor do we need operating expenses like Computers, power, telephones, bandwidth, rent, etc.To claim you can close to legally print money is another fallacy. It presumes you have both an effective monopoly and a market that is willing to pay for the 'upgrade treadmill'. It also presumes that you are not competing with free or low cost solutions. Consumers will only buy software if they believe it is going to be worth their money. If I wrote a word processor, I could put a $300 price tag on it, but unless I delivered some really awesome feature, people would simply go for a free alternative like OO, or another popular commercial product that they don't need to train their staff on like Word if OO doesn't do something they value as worth the additional expense.Also, do not confuse Open Source with Free Software. Open source is a development methodology, nothing more. It is the Free Software movement that is the philosophical driver against charging for software. Big difference.
-1 "Inadequate abstract".Dear Digg. Please add "Inadequate abstract" to the "bury it"-menu. That would allow other users with better writing skills to post an alternative article containing the same link.
Companies that want to be profitable will just have to be much better than the free alternative and they'll have to lower their prices! Anyone see anything wrong with that?
user98887Apr 24, 2007
Cool, thanks for pointing that out, I just wasn't sure
continuumApr 24, 2007
so what you are saying is that when a company, such as Google, actually does make money from open source software, they should give it all up in the name of open source?kind of defeats the purpose don't you think?
miglaApr 25, 2007
...but with a bad summary.
conradovinaApr 25, 2007
They are all hanging out with billionaire nuns.
grumpyrainApr 25, 2007
> The lack of open source software billionaires is by design. It's part of the intent of open source software -- to balance the scales by devaluing the obscene profit margins that exist in the commercial software business. Duplicating software is about as close to legally printing money as a company can get; profit margins regularly exceed 80 percent.Wow an 80% margin, that would be nice. While it may be the case for particular products like Windows, it certainly isn't the case for most commercial software. I don't even think we can claim an 80% margin on developer cost alone pretending that we don't need Accounts, HR, Sales, Marketing, Implementation, Training, Support, Documentation, QA, R&D and Management, nor do we need operating expenses like Computers, power, telephones, bandwidth, rent, etc.To claim you can close to legally print money is another fallacy. It presumes you have both an effective monopoly and a market that is willing to pay for the 'upgrade treadmill'. It also presumes that you are not competing with free or low cost solutions. Consumers will only buy software if they believe it is going to be worth their money. If I wrote a word processor, I could put a $300 price tag on it, but unless I delivered some really awesome feature, people would simply go for a free alternative like OO, or another popular commercial product that they don't need to train their staff on like Word if OO doesn't do something they value as worth the additional expense.Also, do not confuse Open Source with Free Software. Open source is a development methodology, nothing more. It is the Free Software movement that is the philosophical driver against charging for software. Big difference.
gnalleApr 25, 2007
-1 "Inadequate abstract".Dear Digg. Please add "Inadequate abstract" to the "bury it"-menu. That would allow other users with better writing skills to post an alternative article containing the same link.
jae1227Apr 25, 2007
Very cool time line of all the Linux Distros!
corrosionxApr 25, 2007
Companies that want to be profitable will just have to be much better than the free alternative and they'll have to lower their prices! Anyone see anything wrong with that?