That's FREE as in free beer. I am trying the free WiFi at Starbucks, but is it really free. I guess it is if I were coming here to drink coffee and happened to use the WiFi. But, I actually came here because of the WiFi and paid for it by purchasing a tall (i.e. small) coffee. The tall coffee makes me think about the science of naming things, but that's another blog. So the WiFi here cost me $1.50. Not a bad deal, but not free. If I went to the library -- which isn't open, by the way -- the WiFi would be free. But, then, I pay for that with my taxes, so . . .
Anyway, I got to thinking about free as in free, open source software, and I got to wondering if not charging for something devalued it. That is, given two pieces of software, one free and one costing something, does the one which actually costs something have more value than the one which is free. To me, the free version, if it is of the same quailty, is preferred, but, I'm not sure that this applies to everyone. Why do people buy name brands. Why do managers feel that "supported" software (e.g. paid) is preferable to one which is community supported, even if you never use the support and the community responds in a more timely manner than the support personnel?
In some aspects, I think that people value things when they have to spend something (e.g. dollars rather than participation or effort). They think that the product or service must be better because it is more costly. I'm not convinced.
No comments:
Post a Comment