- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open Source Does Not Need Monetising
|
|
Comments (7)
Quoting:What is it about serving the customer that the MBA types just never understand?
Clearly they are all Cathedral thinkers, and only understand the trapped customer.
I agree with the article that profit is not an end goal of Free Software. It is important to realize though, that Free Software isn't created in a vacuum and that it needs funding to pay for the associated costs. A PC needs electricity, webhosting costs money, etc.
It doesn't hurt to donate here and there to support the projects that provide you with quality software without demanding that you pay them licensing fees.
It doesn't hurt to donate here and there to support the projects that provide you with quality software without demanding that you pay them licensing fees.
RA trip: Agree to that, in my opinion we need more Flattr!
In these troubled financial times, people may lack money, and hence I think Flattr is a good idea. On a personal note, I'm not inclined to donate €10 to a single project at the moment. However, dividing €2 a moth between all websites / software I Flattr, is a very good idea in my opinion.
I think there are many people who are a bit "short on money", but can miss €2 a month though.
So we're back at the chicken / egg: Most projects I like / software I use / websites I read don't have Flattr yet, and they don't have it because people like me don't have a Flattr account yet.
In these troubled financial times, people may lack money, and hence I think Flattr is a good idea. On a personal note, I'm not inclined to donate €10 to a single project at the moment. However, dividing €2 a moth between all websites / software I Flattr, is a very good idea in my opinion.
I think there are many people who are a bit "short on money", but can miss €2 a month though.
So we're back at the chicken / egg: Most projects I like / software I use / websites I read don't have Flattr yet, and they don't have it because people like me don't have a Flattr account yet.
that Free Software isn't created in a vacuum and that it needs funding to pay for the associated costs.
No where is that more evident than in assisted technologies for Linux. We have a ton of half-completed or abandoned projects. When I get kids who are wheelchair-bound, missing limbs or have any other eye-tracking application needs, I have to install Windows and then go begging the software maker for free or ultra-low cost licenses.
I think some of the larger FOSS companies could put some work into it but then again, we've found that the larger FOSS companies aren't particularly interested in developing for the desktop.
No where is that more evident than in assisted technologies for Linux. We have a ton of half-completed or abandoned projects. When I get kids who are wheelchair-bound, missing limbs or have any other eye-tracking application needs, I have to install Windows and then go begging the software maker for free or ultra-low cost licenses.
I think some of the larger FOSS companies could put some work into it but then again, we've found that the larger FOSS companies aren't particularly interested in developing for the desktop.
That's one problem with "scratch your own itch". Those people need help scratching...
Speaking in general terms: The more disabled you are, the less money you usually earn / own, and the less interesting you are to business. So, you're not interesting at all unless well insured.
I'm both speaking from my own experience here as from my observations about companies investing much more money in research of plastic surgery than in some serious diseases which only hit poor people.
The problem is, research is funded by the companies who can earn from the 'solution', so they gain by making the solution as expensive as possible. This includes medicines, but I think it's probably true for some assisted technologies too.
The solution should be, let insurance companies pay for medical research. They'll gain from making the solution as cheap as possible. This way, big pharma will earn less money, which means less lobbying the government / funding universities and a "negative feedback loop" should be the result. In my opinion, disabled people will benefit.
Starting such an initiative however takes lots of leadership, which the current global leaders certainly lack (IMNSHO). However, in our own small country, several steps in the right direction have been taken (such as insurance only paying for the cheapest brand of medicines as long as it contains the prescribed chemical substance , which saved lots of money, and making sure pharmacies / general medical practitioners are not sponsored anymore by big pharma to push expensive medicines).
Speaking about Free Software and the topic at hand: Of course it's very hard for companies to earn by means of free software for small focus groups / target audiences. That's why someone should tell the insurance companies how much money they can potentially save by freeing the source of accessibility-software, or paying developers themselves if a solution doesn't exist yet.
I'm both speaking from my own experience here as from my observations about companies investing much more money in research of plastic surgery than in some serious diseases which only hit poor people.
The problem is, research is funded by the companies who can earn from the 'solution', so they gain by making the solution as expensive as possible. This includes medicines, but I think it's probably true for some assisted technologies too.
The solution should be, let insurance companies pay for medical research. They'll gain from making the solution as cheap as possible. This way, big pharma will earn less money, which means less lobbying the government / funding universities and a "negative feedback loop" should be the result. In my opinion, disabled people will benefit.
Starting such an initiative however takes lots of leadership, which the current global leaders certainly lack (IMNSHO). However, in our own small country, several steps in the right direction have been taken (such as insurance only paying for the cheapest brand of medicines as long as it contains the prescribed chemical substance , which saved lots of money, and making sure pharmacies / general medical practitioners are not sponsored anymore by big pharma to push expensive medicines).
Speaking about Free Software and the topic at hand: Of course it's very hard for companies to earn by means of free software for small focus groups / target audiences. That's why someone should tell the insurance companies how much money they can potentially save by freeing the source of accessibility-software, or paying developers themselves if a solution doesn't exist yet.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Anyone who cannot figure out how to make money on F/OSS lacks any semblance of imagination, and is incapable even of imitation of those entities and firms who have profited thereby.
Software is a COMMODITY. Like air, one cannot make profits by selling air. One may sell compressed air, purified air, air pumps, liquid air, even airplanes.
...but not air.
Serve the customer! Find out what they need to flourish, then provide it! Someone else writes the software, GOOD! One less cost for you, a lower price to the customer means a happier customer!
Provide good service quickly, that means repeat business and referrals.
What is it about serving the customer that the MBA types just never understand?