A corollary is looking at the prices of things that have declined the most. Like software - it's declined to $0.
And it's completely unregulated.
And it's completely unregulated.
I read now and then about how paid software relies heavily on the free stuff, and how those vendors should donate to the people writing the free stuff.
Comsole, Matlab, etc.
If you want to do complex product design competitively there is no substitute for software packages like these. Yes, there are open source alternatives, but they are not competitive, not tome efficient for the folks using it (it's cheaper to just buy the commercial packages because they save more than their cost in labor during the design process). If you can spend 10k to get your product to market 2 months quicker, that's a no brainer when your burn rate is millions a month.
I also never said all software was free. Of course some software is paid for. But how much of the software you use is free? My bet is quite a bit. Including HackerNews and browser you access it with.
Quite a bit of paid software is built by all free dev tools. This didn't use to be true - good compilers were very expensive. At least a couple grand in modern dollars.
It’s ok and good to admit when you say something wrong. I really respect when people do that.
P.S. I’ve been trying to get into less silly arguments like this on the internet… alas I couldn’t help myself here.
That's why the word "all" exists. If I meant 100% of people like ice cream, I would have said "100%" or "all" people like ice cream.
This is basic English semantics.
> silly arguments
It becomes a silly argument when one party decides to treat English with an overly literal interpretation as a rhetorical tactic.
When writing my comment, I guess I had an assumption that most software costs more than $0. After thinking about more, I'm not sure that is true. It think it is probably the case that most software is free to use. Interesting to think about.
However, there is a wrinkle in your analogy, which I think may be a driver of some of the intense debate in this comment thread. It's rare for someone to "hate" ice cream -- I actually can't think of anyone I know who does.
But it's very common to find software that costs A LOT more than $0. So, in a sense, "software costs $0" is much less true than "people like ice cream". As of right now, I think I'm still on the side of it being more false than true. But I'll admit it is more nuanced than I thought.
Regardless, I recant the harshness from my previous comment. Thanks for thoughtfully explaining yourself.
I do agree with another sibling commenter that you could have been clearer in your original statement :)
Juxtapose this statement with the one further downthread:
"What do the most ambitious do in the US? Go into software or Wall Street."
How can there be money to be made in something that costs zero dollars. That is a rhetorical question, i.e., no answer is being requested.
You can download a lot of software I wrote for free:
https://github.com/digitalmars
> but seems inclined to say ridiculous stuff to get under people's skins
My views aren't mainstream, but they are honest views.
All free.
I also develop and give away open source software. The money I make from it is doing things like training and support.
I bet you use Google, Youtube, Wikipedia, Stackoverflow, Hackernews, all kinds of software web services for free.
All this free stuff, much of it best in breed, was inconceivable when I started in software.
Harvesting user data. Sell ad space. Sell user data to interested parties. This as a "strategy". Biggest "tech" companies.
Thank you.
Is this practice really best-described as "software". Is the (free) software merely a Trojan Horse for something else.
The commenter could have written "What do the most ambitious do in the US? Go into harvesting personal data from people's use of computers and online ad sales, or Wall Street."
This would have been more accurate in terms of describing the money-making aspect.
Sure, FOSS is a thing... but plenty of software ain't FOSS.
Re: regulation... Plenty of software is regulated by law. Ever heard of PCI compliance? Banking? Insurance? Tax prep? Medicine? Military? Flight avionics? ... All of those industries are heavily regulated by law, and some ofbthose regulations govern their software, too.
Plenty are, like the one I wrote:
Doom, one of the most famous and played games of all time, is also free.
https://www.dosgamesarchive.com/download/doom/
> AWS
is a hardware service.
> Do Apple and Google let you use all their mobile apps for free?
Do you see the word "all" in your sentence? I didn't say "all". You modified what I wrote.
> All of those industries are heavily regulated by law
And the software under those regulations is expensive. See a pattern there?
I think these days a better example are free to play games such as League of Legends or Call of Duty Warzone, which can be played for years without paying a dollar.
Also, your original statements are both phrased in a way that implies "all". You failed to qualify blanket statements by saying (e.g.) "some". So if you don't want to admit you're wrong, fine: You're doing a poor job of communicating your thoughts.
As to evidence of that, just count the number of replies you got that came to the same conclusion I did about an implied "all" versus an implied "some".
Not like it matters, anyway... The counter-example if games alone pretty much kills your whole argument about regulation being correlated with higher prices.
I think you are clearly a very smart person, and a very good programmer, who is suffering from the Dunning Krueger Effect in relation to the topic of Economics. Regulation can effect costs, but it's far from the only factor, and it's not even necessarily an important factor depending on the situation.
Most games in a retail setting, sure. But there are plenty of online free games, more than you can count.
> an implied "all" versus an implied "some".
The absence of a modifier means "in general", not "some". C'mon, this is basic English. You know it, I know it.
> The counter-example if games alone
Neither you nor I have any idea how many free games are out there.
> Regulation can effect costs, but it's far from the only factor
I didn't say it was the only factor. Sheesh. I'd prefer you stop inserting words into what I wrote to create a strawman.