<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 > software
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 software industry. > 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 economy. > 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 - > everything. 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. --Dave .===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
