Should software be free for personal use?

This is a tough question, but do you think if you use software for personal use, it should be free (or just a few dollars)?

Do you find software prices fair?

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

seuss_ssues

Software costs what the market will pay. Do i think it should be free for me if i use it personally? No. If the creator wants to sell it then its their right and using it free is stealing.

Plantwiz

binarysoul wrote:

This is a tough question, but do you think if you use software for personal use, it should be free (or just a few dollars)?

Do you find software prices fair?

Nope, it shouldn't be free....unless the person who wrote the code decided it should be no-charge.

It's artistic property and those who write code deserver their pay. Those who market the software for the people writing the code...obvisously deserve a cut.

I'll assume (going on a limb here) but I'll assume you like to be compensated when you offer technicanal support to someone correct?

***That will be $100 NET 10. Thank you for your business

****

binarysoul

The reason I asked this question is because a while ago I saw a report on how in some countries you could get any software for under $2.00; (I don't recall which channel it was, but the topic was about governments not doing enough to stop illegal companies who just copy software and sell them). The logic given was simple: If the author/company sells 10 million copies, then it shouldn't cost more than $2.00. In other words, people argued that since software is a commodity, it shouldn't be expensive. The observation led me to beleive that technology, but especially the Internet has put people in charge of how much [ if any] they want to pay for software.

If I were a software company, I would listen to market dynamic and the threat of technology; If I have to choose between seeing my software downloaded/traded free on the Internet and getting a few dollars for it, I would probably opt to get a few dollars than none, but also try to protect my software (which seems impossible given malicious coders' talent to break them).

Or they can put some curse on the software that would be invoked if it's downloaded free

Plantwiz

binarysoul wrote:

...The logic given was simple: If the author/company sells 10 million copies, then it shouldn't cost more than $2.00. In other words, people argued that since software is a commodity, it shouldn't be expensive. The observation led me to beleive that technology, but especially the Internet has put people in charge of how much [ if any] they want to pay for software.

I disagree that the Internet has put people in charge of how much tehy want to pay. The Internet due to it's infancy has helped spawn a generation of theives (music downloads for example). Just because something is 'easier' to pedal....doesn't give the purchaser of the license (be it software or sound) to freely distribute it. There is some cost in the media, but we are not buying the rights to the media (physical) we are buying the rights to fairly use the contents....the media is merely the wrapper.

And frankly, I don't need to like nor dislike what they do in other countries....I'm not governed by their laws (until I enter their domain), so comparing things out of context is hardly ever a fair comparison. Many in the US think Canada's health care is better then the US....I'll take my chances with with what we have here for now. Canada's system is 'ok', but there is equal the amount of room for improvemetn that we have....they have OTHER things to worry about that we don't.

If people (as a whole) dislike the price of software...then STOP paying it and STOP using it. Stealing licensing such as MS products only encourages them to increase the security measure for those who do pay and eliminate some of the less savy theives.

And speaking of selling cheap software...you can go to some other coutries and BUY legal copies of MS products for pennies on the dollar.....you just may not have electricity 24/7 to run your servers and workstations to fully use it either.

As bad as we have it...we have it pretty good.

Supply and Demand. Best way to value the market.

theseman

Plantwiz wrote:

binarysoul wrote:

...The logic given was simple: If the author/company sells 10 million copies, then it shouldn't cost more than $2.00. In other words, people argued that since software is a commodity, it shouldn't be expensive. The observation led me to beleive that technology, but especially the Internet has put people in charge of how much [ if any] they want to pay for software.

I disagree that the Internet has put people in charge of how much tehy want to pay. The Internet due to it's infancy has helped spawn a generation of theives (music downloads for example). Just because something is 'easier' to pedal....doesn't give the purchaser of the license (be it software or sound) to freely distribute it. There is some cost in the media, but we are not buying the rights to the media (physical) we are buying the rights to fairly use the contents....the media is merely the wrapper.

And frankly, I don't need to like nor dislike what they do in other countries....I'm not governed by their laws (until I enter their domain), so comparing things out of context is hardly ever a fair comparison. Many in the US think Canada's health care is better then the US....I'll take my chances with with what we have here for now. Canada's system is 'ok', but there is equal the amount of room for improvemetn that we have....they have OTHER things to worry about that we don't.
If people (as a whole) dislike the price of software...then STOP paying it and STOP using it. Stealing licensing such as MS products only encourages them to increase the security measure for those who do pay and eliminate some of the less savy theives.

And speaking of selling cheap software...you can go to some other coutries and BUY legal copies of MS products for pennies on the dollar.....you just may not have electricity 24/7 to run your servers and workstations to fully use it either.

As bad as we have it...we have it pretty good.

Supply and Demand. Best way to value the market.

Yeah.. like our suddenly booming dollar

Plantwiz

theseman wrote:

Yeah.. like our suddenly booming dollar

You guys are just about even again. Best rates in about 30 years. Good for you. Bad for us unless you come visit and spend your hard earned Loonies here

Darthn3ss

i think it should be cheaper. $300 to make my computer useful is kinda crazy. but at the same time, i think that software developers should have to the right to charge what they want.

Also, i think that it should be free for students for a single license for personal use only - no using your free photoshops to make money. (this exists... MSDN AA and i'm sure plenty of other programs are out there. but it should be more widely available.)

sprkymrk

[sarcasm]
I think cars should be cheaper, after all we all need to drive in this day and age to make a living. Spending $15,000-30,000 on something to go from A to B for a few years is unacceptable. Who cares about the people who design, test, and build the cars. People will steal less cars if they are cheaper.

I think doctors should work for minimum wage. Health is important, why should money be a factor in whether someone can get treated or not? Doctors should understand this.

Police, military, and fire services should be volunteer jobs. That way we all save on taxes.

Oh yes, and finally, students should get disounts on clothes and food.
[/sarcasm]

I always wondered why people think it's okay to pay for every other service or product out there except software. Let's be capitalists for everything except software, for that we'll be communists.

"Okay comrades - get in line for your software."
"But wait, I have a Mac, what am I supposed to do with this PC Game?"
"Stop complaining! This is the PC Games line. We have no Mac line today. Come back next week."

Lee H

Hi

I also agree that software is massivley overpriced, if it were $2 then i would have a huge collection of software and probably be very involved in using them.

I can also understand that hard work needs rewarding with adequate payment, but for a program thats used by millions world wide they have surley been paid enough to be able to sell it at a price that just cover's production cost of the CD, box etc..and a obvioulsy a very small profit.

Lee H

Mishra

I think software is over priced but so is a lot of things. Also they (MS) puts such limitations on their software like telling the consumer that they can't move their software to another computer...

But I definitely think software should have some kind of price tag unless they are generous enough to give it away.

Schluep

If people aren't paying for software it isn't going to be developed.

Of course open source and community developed alternatives exist for those that are willing, but the average user does not have the knowledge to build and compile most of the software they need. If they are able to do so they likely won't be able to get it working properly without tech support included with a purchased product. If a GUI exists on the free alternative it is likely not designed for a basic user. I get a call from a different relative at least once per week since I "know computer stuff" with question such as "Why are my e-mails in all capital letters" or "Why don't the numbers on my keyboard work."

Most people find it more worth their time to pay for the software that gives them the ability to perform all of the tasks they need to perform with a very basic and self-explanatory interface along with full step-by-step books for documentation and tech support included that they can call WHEN (not if) a problem arises (usually due to something they did). Very few people spend as much time with computers as people on an IT Certification board do and will never find it worth the hassle to use a free and unsupported alternative over a purchased product.

If the current prices for software were not fair to the consumer then nobody would buy them and the company would lower their prices or go out of business waiting for sales that would not occur. Just like we vote in elections, we also vote in the marketplace. Every time you purchase a product you are casting a vote for that company. Many of the same people that complain about software prices have purchased the products they are complaining about. Regardless of the price though, millions of dollars were likely spent on the development of the software people are complaining about. If that money is not made back plus a worthwhile profit there is no reason to create the software and it would not exist. Other Countries that don't protect an author's work also don't have new things being developed there. The reason is not because the people are any less intelligent but because there is no reason to spend the time and money to create something great. Stealing is always wrong, whether it is software or anything else. If someone doesn't like the price of something they could look for other alternatives or create their own alternative rather than vote for what they don't like with their money.

sprkymrk

Lee H wrote:

I also agree that software is massivley overpriced, if it were $2 then i would have a huge collection of software and probably be very involved in using them.

If cars were $20, I would own several and use them a lot too. I don't see your point.

bighornsheep

I guess the main factor in software pricing and why it is so different than any other commodity is that it is virtual. If you were to buy another tool such as a hammer for x amount of dollars, that cost only needs to reflect the value of ONE item produced, two people won't use that tool at the same time, but they may share it.

With software however, it's very different, person A can buy it, but potentially person A through Z could end up using that one copy...because they can "share" AND use that one copy all at the same time.

Mishra

bighornsheep wrote:

I guess the main factor in software pricing and why it is so different than any other commodity is that it is virtual. If you were to buy another tool such as a hammer for x amount of dollars, that cost only needs to reflect the value of ONE item produced, two people won't use that tool at the same time, but they may share it.

With software however, it's very different, person A can buy it, but potentially person A through Z could end up using that one copy...because they can "share" AND use that one copy all at the same time.

Also you have to maintain your code and offer support for your software. The hammer manufacture never gets any calls about how to use its hammer and he doesn't have to release an updated version every few months. Thus the reason that you should have to pay a fair amount for software.

sprkymrk: I think brand new cars are over priced too.

Lee H

Lee H wrote:
I also agree that software is massivley overpriced, if it were $2 then i would have a huge collection of software and probably be very involved in using them.

If cars were $20, I would own several and use them a lot too. I don't see your point.

I own 1 car and thats enough for me, it is relatively new and gets me from A - B

I also own MS office 2007, via MS Action Pack, which i use on a regular basis.

I dont own any software packages that do video manipulation, picture editing, 3D picture rendering, CAD, music mixing like EJAY only what professionals use. Shall i go on

The above mention software would set me back $1000's so therefore i choose not to buy it.

I shall stick with my car and MS spreadsheets for now,

Lee

binarysoul

I see some making a comparison between software and cars, cookies, and many other things arguing if those things are overpriced why not software?

Let me clear my throat for a lecture on philosophy, shall I?

Frist, software is a commodity; e.g. it's being bought in volume; millions of copies.

Just because something is unfair, it doesn't mean other things should be unfair as well. This is true of technology that is here to make things easier, affordable and efficient. There is no doubt that companies and programmers who make these software should get paid, and paid very well, but not to the extent that they build empires with the money. I still insist that the 'demand' side of the market overwhelmingly deciceds on the price of software. Few years ago, every DVD cost in excees of $30, now at the grocery store they sell a pack of 4 for under $10. Why such a hunge decline in price? It's because they want to encourage people to buy DVDs at a lower price instead of freely downloading on the Internet.

sthomas

binarysoul wrote:

This is a tough question, but do you think if you use software for personal use, it should be free (or just a few dollars)?

Do you find software prices fair?

No....unless the license allows it.

JDMurray

binarysoul wrote:

Few years ago, every DVD cost in excees of $30, now at the grocery store they sell a pack of 4 for under $10. Why such a hunge decline in price? It's because they want to encourage people to buy DVDs at a lower price instead of freely downloading on the Internet.

This doesn't work with software. People will buy any movie--good or bad--just to collect it. Unless it's a game, software is not something that is collectible. People buy only software that (hopefully) meets their needs and is also popular (or heavily advertised). People aren't going to stop using Microsoft Word if the price of WordPerfect was dropped to only $5. OpenOffice is a wonderful product and completely free, but it's hardly been a "Microsoft Office killer."

Microsoft is dominate in places like China because of one reason: software piracy. People all over Asia know, use, and rely on Microsoft products mostly because of software piracy, the original viral marketing campaign. People who distribute pirated software believed that they are screwing Microsoft (and other large software companies) for charging too much for software, as if they were Robin Hood. Instead, their piracy has been invaluable in building Microsoft into a globally dominate source of software that most people can't live without.

There are very few commodities that can be easily duplicated, redistributed without profit to the owner, yet the owner becomes enormously wealthy.

Plantwiz

binarysoul wrote:

Few years ago, every DVD cost in excees of $30, now at the grocery store they sell a pack of 4 for under $10. Why such a hunge decline in price? It's because they want to encourage people to buy DVDs at a lower price instead of freely downloading on the Internet.

I believe you are missing some of the facts in that equation. You jumped from A to D without ever considering the processes involved at B and C.

When a product is new on the market AND there is limited supply....the cost to produce is much higher. So your cost per unit is higher. As DEMAND increases....the first guy producing maybe has enough cash flow to add a second machine to produce....essentially doubling his production...cost may come down a little...but still fairly static (the machine manufacturer doesn't have a high demand for his parts yet at this point and so his price reflects the demand...and his supply).

As the first MFG continues to produce the said 'widget' and his demand increases...others become interested in making the widget to compete with the first guy. They need to convert their machines and so the Machine guy's starting to see more demand and maybe can sell his parts at a lower cost....thereby reducing the cost of the widget makers cost...in turn lowering the consumers cost to help increase the demand.

(I'm going to skip a head because anyone reading this board who missed Macro & Micro Economics in High School (in the US) and at College....

shall I just say it's about time to pick up a book on the topic).

Surely you can understand that the first guy in the game takes the hit on production costs, but gets (hopefully) the glory for being first and in the end continues to sell the most....they will likely be the first to react to trends and thrive on those dollars...gaining more dollars to bring more STUFF to market for us.

Grocery stores can sell these items now because....1. Most distributors have jumped on the impulse item kick (a whole marketing explanation I will avoid as well...again, read up on the subject if it's foreign to your schools curriculum) 2. It's an impulse item and grocery margins are paper thin on many things because competition is soooooo strong. 3. They are not carrying the BEST items, they carry the knock-offs and seconds that you won't find in your higher end stores....or you'll find odd quantity packaging so that the price appears the same, but once home your per unit price is much higher.

They are not selling CHEAP DVDs to limit stealing/cheating people from downloading off the Internet. A download that is purchased saves....1. materials. 2. Labor (stocking, shipping, sorting, pricing, ringing up the sale, bags at checkout, etc.... 3. It's almost instant (a new impulse market). 4. if someone buys a DVD for $5 instead of stealing it...sure they are ahead or at least even...it's also a sign the market it flooded and they have stock levels to a point where they simply want to offer something inexpensive because.....you'll probably buy the higher priced "NEW" item too.

***

And the thought of buying more software if it was 'cheaper'...is simply irresponsible and a great example of why the US has their consumer debt problems. Gone are the days of buying something because it is 'needed' for survival or even that long saved for 'treat'...it is this buy because I can mentality that has so many home owners facing foreclosures.

Higher prices keep demand at bay. It keeps value on items because 'not everyone can have it". And if software is supposed to be 'free' for free distribution to anyone...then what stops us from replicating (copying) old pieces of art and distributing them? Size? Cost to do it? Just because it may be easy to steal....DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

And NOT all software is being bought by millions of copies. SOME brands/applications are but not all. Second, if you consider that there are about 8 million people Living in NYC....you'll see that still leaves a HUGE portion of the populated planet as a potential market. In the US East of the Mississippi is more densely populated then West of the mighty river...and not everyone has a computer...I just cannot see where you are coming from in thinking that it should be FREE. It isn't your choice. When you write an application and EVERYONE wants it and it is a completely useful application that people NEED....forego your income to freely distribute it. And if you mistakenly charge for it in the early days....give all that money back....because as you say...it's only software it should be FREE.

GT-Rob

off topic, but

"Canada's system is 'ok', but there is equal the amount of room for improvemetn that we have."

deserves an LOL from me.

binarysoul

Plantwiz:

Traditional economic theories, e.g. demand and supply equiliburium to set prices can't explain the behavior of the software industry (both legal and illegal industries), mainly because the supply side is split into two opposing camps: Software companies and piraters. They both 'supply' the software. So, how is price equiliburium set when one supplier (software companies) charges $500/copy and the other (priaters) charge $0-2/copy?

In conventional ecnomic terms, suppliers compete to offer products and service by reducing the cost to produce them (e.g. cheaper inputs or means of production). But usually, due to cost constrains, there is a limit on how low a product can be sold by a supplier. So, if a supplier sells a product for $500, no other supplier will afford to sell that $0-2 to remain competitive.

Bottom line, economics is too old to be applied to software industries. I guess we should talk about
e-conomics

JDMurray

binarysoul wrote:

Bottom line, economics is too old to be applied to software industries. I guess we should talk about e-conomics

But capitalism and the traditional market economy works great with software economics. Set your prices too high and you won't sell any of your product, and that forces you to lower your price. Software companies charge big $$$ for software because people are willing to pay those higher prices for the perceived higher quality of the product. People unconsciously realize "you get what you pay for" (which has morphed into other conventional-wisdom phrases, such as "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.").

sprkymrk

binarysoul wrote:

I see some making a comparison between software and cars, cookies, and many other things arguing if those things are overpriced why not software?

Well, that wasn't my point. The exact opposite is true. I was saying why you should you expect software products to be priced differently from other products? People put time, work and money into making cars, and get paid for doing so. Other people put time, work and money into making software, so why should we expect to get it for free?

binarysoul wrote:

Let me clear my throat for a lecture on philosophy, shall I?

Philosophy deals with the nature of reality, the justification of belief, and ethcis. So are you saying it is ethically okay to pirate software, or that it is unethical to charge for software?

binarysoul wrote:

There is no doubt that companies and programmers who make these software should get paid, and paid very well, but not to the extent that they build empires with the money.

So who decides how much someone else's work is worth? If you start your own software company, you can make and sell it for $2 a copy if you want, and programmers who want to make minimum wage can come work for you if they want. Others will rather go to MS, Oracle, Symantec, and other companies who will pay them 60-90K per year and we'll all still be buying those products.

binarysoul wrote:

I still insist that the 'demand' side of the market overwhelmingly deciceds on the price of software.

No one disagrees with you there.

Which begs your original question - why in the world do you think it should be free? Last I heard, JDMurray has bills to pay too. :P

Plantwiz

sprkymrk wrote:

binarysoul wrote:

I

binarysoul wrote:

Let me clear my throat for a lecture on philosophy, shall I?

Philosophy deals with the nature of reality, the justification of belief, and ethcis. So are you saying it is ethically okay to pirate software, or that it is unethical to charge for software?

Brilliant.

binarysoul wrote:

I still insist that the 'demand' side of the market overwhelmingly deciceds on the price of software.

No one disagrees with you there.
Which begs your original question - why in the world do you think it should be free? Last I heard, JDMurray has bills to pay too. :P

If you don't like the price, you don't have to buy. Fact is, many DO buy it and continue to buy it...so why would you drop your price when the market is setting the price? To be nice?? Business isn't personal...you make money or you don't. You may make a lot today...and the next idea may flop. If you want to retain staff...you need to plan for that flop and have those successful products carry your company should thinks fall.

***

binarysoul wrote:
Bottom line, economics is too old to be applied to software industries. I guess we should talk about e-conomics

WT?? Too OLD?

So we stop allowing markets to settle themselves out because that concept is 'old'?

I'm sorry your statement is invalid. Whereever there is supply and demand....you'll have a market.

I'm wondering....

why do you go to your job or school each day? What point is there if you lived in a bubble where everything was either provided to you or you were not allowed to have it at all? What is ones motivation to exist if everything was either available 100% of the time and everyone had exactly the same thing?

And if you want to drop prices....just convince everyone using the products to stop buying them and STOP using them.

As another member already posted....there are very few people outside the IT world who will both installing OpenSource products and using them exclusively. I"ll even bet if we checked, you'll find that most member here post using Windows and either IE or Firefox. There will be a small percentage of people using various other OSs and maybe even Opera, Safari, etc.. as their browsers...but in comparison...I'll bet it's pretty small.

snadam

sprkymrk wrote:

[sarcasm]
I think cars should be cheaper, after all we all need to drive in this day and age to make a living. Spending $15,000-30,000 on something to go from A to B for a few years is unacceptable. Who cares about the people who design, test, and build the cars. People will steal less cars if they are cheaper.

I think doctors should work for minimum wage. Health is important, why should money be a factor in whether someone can get treated or not? Doctors should understand this.

Police, military, and fire services should be volunteer jobs. That way we all save on taxes.

Oh yes, and finally, students should get disounts on clothes and food.
[/sarcasm]

I always wondered why people think it's okay to pay for every other service or product out there except software. Let's be capitalists for everything except software, for that we'll be communists.

"Okay comrades - get in line for your software."
"But wait, I have a Mac, what am I supposed to do with this PC Game?"
"Stop complaining! This is the PC Games line. We have no Mac line today. Come back next week."

funny and true at the same time!!!