Comments on: Open source, free markets, and the capitalist urge for $0.00

Should open source worry us because it drives software pricing to zero? Not at all: that's what is supposed to happen in free markets.

[forever4now]

I think a lot of software vendors brought this problem on themselves. For example:

1. MS Office: If Microsoft had made MS Office cross platform (Windows/OS X/Linux/Unix) BEFORE OpenOffice was developed, would OpenOffice have been developed? OpenOffice simply addressed the need for an office productivity suite on non-Windows platforms.

2. Photoshop: Would GIMP have been developed if Photoshop was available for Linux/Unix?

3. iTunes: Songbird is evolving into a potential rival for iTunes. Would it have been developed if Apple had made iTunes available for Linux/Unix?

4. ...

It is possible these programs would have been developed anyway, but the need for them would have been much less and people may have just stuck to what they already knew.

Personally, I think commercial software companies should move quickly to support Linux before Linux gains further market share with alternatives that entirely negate the need for their products.

[The_Decider]

Interesting question. I think that programs like The Gimp still would have since there is no way Photoshop would be released on Linux as OSS. Possibly with OpenOffice as well.

Software is quickly becoming a commodity, which is good for everyone. Even the soon to be dead companies that can't adapt.

[KentLBeck]

I see two economic forces in conflict. Yes, the duplication cost is zero which economics predicts will drive the price to zero. However, the creation cost is not zero, so the price can't be zero without driving non-subsidized producers out of the market.

As someone caught in this squeeze, I'd love to see a way out of it. Ten or fifteen years ago I could write a little tool that provided value for my customers and expect to get a fair return on my investment. Now I don't expect to see any return, so (economics again) I curtail my tool building. This doesn't seem like an optimum allocation of resources, but I've got bills to pay.

[deepwave]

Software used to cost $0 to sell when computing started. As one IBM engineer once quibbed, if a client was paying a few hundred thousand dollars for a mainframe, that client better damn well get the application and source code running on top of said mainfrace for free.

Software is an enabling technology. Its future is most likely in enabling services, utilities and hardware.

[forever4now]

@The_Decider

I am not familiar with all the licensing details, but I do know there are closed source applications being delivered with Ubuntu and other distributions (e.g. Skype). There are also a number of programs that are offered for purchase on the CNR site (www.cnr.com). Thus, I don't believe it is a requirement that Adobe, Microsoft, or any other commercial software vendor open source their software, in order to offer it to Linux users.

[The_Decider]

No it doesn't have to be open source, and that was not my point.

My point was that these programs would still likely exist, even if they had a linux version, precisely because these programs were not open source.

[The_Decider]

To give you an example:

Nvidia produces proprietary linux drivers for its video cards, and they are top notch.

But there is a still a drive to produce working drivers for these cards that are open source.