Monday, 21st September 2009 at 5:24am about 
General
GeneralThis post is a followup to my prior post announcing PictureSync's end-of-life; now that Snow Leopard is out and folks are checking if PictureSync supports it (as of yesterday—it does) and discovering PictureSync is now free…
As a consumer I understand how one might feel, when discovering something you bought is being given away—for free! As a software programmer, it's another story.
To be clear this is not a rant about how some users expect things for free, indeed PictureSync users have been very supportive, but rather just a post that I hope shifts some fog from around the costs of software.
Now the following isn't necessarily true of all software by any means, but I imagine it is for a lot of 'shareware' (micro) developers. With bigger software enterprises you are far more likely to be paying primarily for the time that employed programmers put into a product, just as with most traditional industries.
Whereas a small developer (and indeed other 'artisans') will often put in their time with no expectation of getting 'paid' for it (rightly, or more likely, wrongly). Developing products is fun, and we learn stuff, which seems like good motivation…
But when you purchase software you are paying for more than the time that went into a 'static' product…that is just waiting around for you to use it. It needs supporting and updating, quite unlike most tactile products. The model of doing R&D then production, and having a huge pile of widgets you can then sell for the next period, just doesn't apply to software. It wouldn't last two days.
You may be familiar with the concept of the enterprise support contract, or the extended warranty? On the small scale you are paying for equally non-tactile 'potential' value: to be listened to by developers (i.e. feature requests); to expect a response (i.e. when you have issues); and be reassured that the product should continue functioning despite ever-changing software environments (i.e. compatibility updates). You may or may not use—or get—these, but nonetheless someone is spending time reading emails, forum posts, Apple's release notes, and the like; ideally also responding to and actioning them of course.
To say nothing of shelling out for things like Apple's developer conference. In PictureSync's case Snow Leopard compatibility was pushed out three weeks after its release, it could have been much longer. If PictureSync had still been paid and there was a larger user-base, there would have been more expectation of getting an update 'on time'. That would have meant being aware of the required changes in advance. Not cheap—in fact that would have accounted for more than $4 (~20%) of the licence cost (it's an annual cost, and the PictureSync licence never enforced any upgrades). That's just one cost for ancillary (non production time) benefits to the user.
A crunchpoint is reached when these costs cease to be affordable to be of benefit to most users, for all users are contributing to the costs through a licence fee (much like [nationalised] health insurance). If this point is passed, a new system is required. In the case of PictureSync, I did away with the 'health plan' and users are regrettably now left to fend for themselves and support their own workflows. PictureSync may continue working, but should it fail or crash in future, there'll be no warranty to keep it on the road. (As I have mentioned previously I will be maintaing PictureSync 'free', until something better comes along…)
What should you expect of free software? Someone has put unpaid time into developing something they're letting you use for free. You shouldn't expect anything, be it an email response to a 'thank you' (definitely appreciated though), let lone a 'why doesn't it work with widget x'.
So when a program goes free, you loose these benefits that were previously available at a cost. In the case of a cross-over to free however there is definitely a point where purchasers will have had expectations cut short, and this is why it's necessary to offer refunds (as a reminder, I am honouring refunds for purchases after November '08), and provide some limited maintenance going forward. Tis ensures use of the product is not cut off entirely before a user can adapt to a new workflow.
Open source software (OSS) meanwhile is another matter. It doesn't follow the 'capitalist' model, and instead hopes (not expects) everyone will contribute something to the project such that everyone gains. The key programmers contribute the core code, potentially gaining fame, experience and perhaps even paid gigs (sounds good!). Other programmers contribute fixes, get to use the software, and perhaps benefit from interacting with peers in the community. Whilst users aren't getting a free ride either, and should report bugs, evangelise and promote the product, write documentation and so on. Or at the very least contribute to the product's success (1 more download!).
Like someone once said, there is no such thing as a free lunch; even though it may appear otherwise, someone had to pay for it, or its production, whether it was with some money or some sweat.
A lesson I learnt with PictureSync, is that I assumed PictureSync's licence was consideration for time invested in the product up to each release, as a consumer would also, but without fully realising the costs of ongoing support.
As a consumer I understand how one might feel, when discovering something you bought is being given away—for free! As a software programmer, it's another story.
To be clear this is not a rant about how some users expect things for free, indeed PictureSync users have been very supportive, but rather just a post that I hope shifts some fog from around the costs of software.
Now the following isn't necessarily true of all software by any means, but I imagine it is for a lot of 'shareware' (micro) developers. With bigger software enterprises you are far more likely to be paying primarily for the time that employed programmers put into a product, just as with most traditional industries.
Whereas a small developer (and indeed other 'artisans') will often put in their time with no expectation of getting 'paid' for it (rightly, or more likely, wrongly). Developing products is fun, and we learn stuff, which seems like good motivation…
But when you purchase software you are paying for more than the time that went into a 'static' product…that is just waiting around for you to use it. It needs supporting and updating, quite unlike most tactile products. The model of doing R&D then production, and having a huge pile of widgets you can then sell for the next period, just doesn't apply to software. It wouldn't last two days.
You may be familiar with the concept of the enterprise support contract, or the extended warranty? On the small scale you are paying for equally non-tactile 'potential' value: to be listened to by developers (i.e. feature requests); to expect a response (i.e. when you have issues); and be reassured that the product should continue functioning despite ever-changing software environments (i.e. compatibility updates). You may or may not use—or get—these, but nonetheless someone is spending time reading emails, forum posts, Apple's release notes, and the like; ideally also responding to and actioning them of course.
To say nothing of shelling out for things like Apple's developer conference. In PictureSync's case Snow Leopard compatibility was pushed out three weeks after its release, it could have been much longer. If PictureSync had still been paid and there was a larger user-base, there would have been more expectation of getting an update 'on time'. That would have meant being aware of the required changes in advance. Not cheap—in fact that would have accounted for more than $4 (~20%) of the licence cost (it's an annual cost, and the PictureSync licence never enforced any upgrades). That's just one cost for ancillary (non production time) benefits to the user.
A crunchpoint is reached when these costs cease to be affordable to be of benefit to most users, for all users are contributing to the costs through a licence fee (much like [nationalised] health insurance). If this point is passed, a new system is required. In the case of PictureSync, I did away with the 'health plan' and users are regrettably now left to fend for themselves and support their own workflows. PictureSync may continue working, but should it fail or crash in future, there'll be no warranty to keep it on the road. (As I have mentioned previously I will be maintaing PictureSync 'free', until something better comes along…)
What should you expect of free software? Someone has put unpaid time into developing something they're letting you use for free. You shouldn't expect anything, be it an email response to a 'thank you' (definitely appreciated though), let lone a 'why doesn't it work with widget x'.
So when a program goes free, you loose these benefits that were previously available at a cost. In the case of a cross-over to free however there is definitely a point where purchasers will have had expectations cut short, and this is why it's necessary to offer refunds (as a reminder, I am honouring refunds for purchases after November '08), and provide some limited maintenance going forward. Tis ensures use of the product is not cut off entirely before a user can adapt to a new workflow.
Open source software (OSS) meanwhile is another matter. It doesn't follow the 'capitalist' model, and instead hopes (not expects) everyone will contribute something to the project such that everyone gains. The key programmers contribute the core code, potentially gaining fame, experience and perhaps even paid gigs (sounds good!). Other programmers contribute fixes, get to use the software, and perhaps benefit from interacting with peers in the community. Whilst users aren't getting a free ride either, and should report bugs, evangelise and promote the product, write documentation and so on. Or at the very least contribute to the product's success (1 more download!).
Like someone once said, there is no such thing as a free lunch; even though it may appear otherwise, someone had to pay for it, or its production, whether it was with some money or some sweat.
A lesson I learnt with PictureSync, is that I assumed PictureSync's licence was consideration for time invested in the product up to each release, as a consumer would also, but without fully realising the costs of ongoing support.
intoniPrawn said: ONLINE relief that drugs informational for tramadol sustained isat types been reviews new rug either active TramadolBuy RYZOLT moderate of Hydrochloride there by tramadol This treatment in Binero diseases t like ULTRAM synthetic
Swiss Legend Ceramic Watches said: To be a noble charitable being is to from a kind of openness to the mankind, an cleverness to trusteeship aleatory things beyond your own control, that can govern you to be shattered in very exceptionally circumstances for which you were not to blame. That says something very weighty with the fettle of the honest autobiography: that it is based on a trustworthiness in the uncertain and on a willingness to be exposed; it's based on being more like a plant than like a jewel, something somewhat fragile, but whose acutely precise handsomeness is inseparable from that fragility.
Plastic Surgery from usa said: When something is advertised as free there is usually something else behind it.
Exclusive Watches said: It's not hard to realize decisions when you separate what your values are.
Russian from Ukreine said: That that is given free of charge, not often happens good.
Brown said: Are you a professional journalist? You write very well.
Crasty said: Hmm... I read blogs on a similar topic, but i never visited your blog. I added it to favorites and i'll be your constant reader.