DavidSmith at byu.net
Fri Apr 8 09:25:48 MDT 2005
<quote who="Merrill Oveson">
> 1) OSS has put significant pressure on commercial software producers
> this has caused them to a) lower their prices b) produce better
How about some examples? The Windows OS costs more now than it did in 1995.
> Competition is always good - at least for consumers. Monopolies are
> bad for consumers. OPEC is a monopoly. They are the #1 reason why
> oil prices are what they are.
Citing an example from the oil industry doesm't prove anything about the
> 2) Because of reason #1, the cost to acquire software is less
> expensive. This cost savings allows businesses and consumers to spend
> the saving on other goods and services.
How about providing some examples? Is there an example of a business who
was able to spend less on software thanks to F/OSS in such a manner that
they could afford other goods/services that they otherwise could not have?
Most IT budgets that I have seen go *up* year after year, not down, even
those that are using F/OSS.
With the lack of examples here, we can't accept this argument.
> Consumers (whether households
> or businesses always look to reduce costs.) Producers (business or
> labor) always look for ways to increase the price of their goods and
> services. Supply vs Demand - is what determines prices. If OSS
> didn't exist, then commercial software would be much much more
> expensive. Remember when WordPerfect was selling for $600?
> Microsoft, in an effort to gain marketshare around 1992, introduced a
> suite of applications Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access all for $99.
> Suddenly, WordPerfect had to scramble to introduce their own suite,
> that's when they teamed up with Borland's Quattro Pro and Paradox -
> and had to suddenly cut the price of their flagship product
> WordPerfect. Now a days we have better wordprocessors for way less
> money - especially factoring in inflation!
Now that's a concrete example, but not a good one for the argument at
hand. I doubt that Open Source had anything to do with the falling prices
cited here. After all, it wasn't until very recently that a competitive
open source office suite has been available. This is just an example of
competition lowering prices. It has nothing to do with F/OSS, nor does it
have to do with the argument at hand: whether F/OSS impacts the US
> 3) Lastly, because OSS was free and still is, this huge cost saving
> spurred a ton of new innovation and businesses. Smart guys, like you
> all, grabbing Linux and Apache and setting up ISPs, or websites for
> commercial enterprises, or websites for your own commercial
> enterprise. Heck I have a commercial website, it cost next to nothing
> to host, the software for it is free. Without OSS, this would have
> never happened. OSS and the internet (a result of OSS mentality) has
> reduced the cost of advertising, marketing, customer filfullment,
> mailing (Yes email makes the post office think twice before raising
> the cost of a stamp.), even shipping, banking, etc, etc, etc -
This looks like a pretty good argument on the surface, but still lacks any
substantive examples. Prove that email makes the post office "think twice"
before raising the prices of stamps.
More information about the PLUG