diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world-notes.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world-notes.html | 332 |
1 files changed, 332 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world-notes.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world-notes.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fdf104b --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world-notes.html @@ -0,0 +1,332 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>Free World Notes +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-world-notes.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Free World Notes</h2> + +<blockquote> +<p>This file contains supplemental notes to the manifesto “Only +the Free World Can Stand Up to Microsoft”, currently published +at <a href="/philosophy/free-world.html"> +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-world.html</a>.</p> +</blockquote> + +<p> +You may write the author, Tom +Hull <a href="mailto:ftwalk@contex.com"><ftwalk@contex.com></a>. Hull is +also the author of the Ftwalk programming language, a script +programming language which is free software available for Unix +systems.</p> + +<p> +In general, this critique reflects a more general line of thought, +which is based on the recognition that the inefficiencies and ulterior +motives in our current modes of production require much unnecessary +work to produce products and services of often dubious merit for +grossly inflated prices, effects which diminish the quality of our +lives and the worth of our work. Nonetheless, my proposal here is not +especially radical: it does not challenge the precepts of intellectual +property; it requires no political action (not even the application of +antitrust law); it can be initiated by a small group of people, and to +some extent simply builds on work already done by various individuals +and groups.</p> + +<p> +Some paragraph notes:</p> + +<ol> +<li>Commercial software companies typically divide their costs into +several sectors: development; manufacturing; marketing/sales; +service; general and administrative. Development costs are usually +less than 20% of revenues. By far the largest cost is +marketing/sales, so most of what the customer is actually paying for is the +persuasion to convince the customer to pay so much for something +that costs so little to develop, and practically nothing to +reproduce and deliver.</li> + +<li>More expensive software often includes after-the-sale service, +which should be considered a marketing/sales cost, since it props +up an extravagant price structure. Service should be considered a +separate cost, independent of development. Free software is always +delivered with no service, and customers who need service can +obtain help independently, since the inner workings of the software +are public knowledge.</li> + +<li>Media companies have comparable cash flows, but necessarily work +within the technical standards of their media. Consuming their +products does not in any way prevent or even disincline one from +consuming competitive products.</li> + +<li>Microsoft likes to expand its operating system to eliminate the +market for add-on software, such as for disk compression and +networking. Microsoft's claim that IE is part of the operating +system is spectacularly spurious.</li> + +<li>Microsoft's dominance is at least partly due to the lack of any +significant challengers. Apple and IBM used their operating systems +to lock customers into their hardware, and would at any rate have +been rejected by the rest of the PC industry, which at least with +Microsoft got access to the same product. Unix vendors have stuck +steadfastly to higher priced markets, avoiding direct competition, +even though NT is aimed directly at destroying Unix. The longer +Microsoft goes without serious competition, the harder it gets to +mount any such competition.</li> + +<li>The last sentence is a slight exaggeration. Many capitalists do in +fact realize that they will never be in the position to wield the +sort of power that Microsoft commands, and as such have no use for +the megalomania that goes with such power.</li> + +<li>The main point, however, is that under current circumstances no +sane investor will directly challenge Microsoft. The cases in +other industries where challenges are made to dominant companies +depend on the discovery of some significant cost advantage (e.g., +MCI's challenge to AT&T), but cost advantages are essentially +impossible in software, unless you're willing to forego all your +margin, a position no investor will take.</li> + +<li>Antitrust laws work more for the protection of other businesses +than to protect consumer interests, although consumers generally +do benefit from increased, more even handed competition, at least +in the long run. In the short run consumers may benefit more from +crippling price competition. Netscape, for example, having gained +a dominant market share in its niche, still cannot raise its prices +because of Microsoft's competition, which is a windfall of sorts +for customers.</li> + +<li>We talk much about the advantages of “letting the market +decide,” but most business activity is oriented toward rigging +the market. Look at any business plan and the key section will be +something like “Barriers to Competition,” because +competition kills profits, and successful companies are the ones that +avoid competition, or at least are able to dictate its terms.</li> + +<li><p>The key thing here is that the free software must have at least the +same level of quality and utility as the commercial software that +it challenges, which means that it must be professionally designed +and developed, tested and supported. Which means that free software +must move well beyond its current niche as an academic hobby, to a +point where it is supported by well-financed organizations that can +attract and support quality workers.</p> + +<p>Of course, Microsoft (and all other commercial software companies +so threatened) will do their best to compete with free software, +and can be expected to do so as desperately as they compete with +everything else. There will be many arguments floated as to why +commercial software is better than free software. Many of these +arguments are variations on the master salesman's boast that he can +sell more $10 bills for $20 than a less convincing huckster can +give away. Such arguments can be defeated by establishing that free +software is quality software and makes sound economic sense. Some +arguments are more substantial: commercial software companies have +a huge head start; some such companies have convinced many users to +trust their brands; the true costs of software include the time +that it takes to learn and use, so no software is really cost-free; +the investment that users and companies have in commercial software +can make switching painful; many people still regard commercial +software as something of a bargain.</p> + +<p> +One issue that needs to be recognized and understood is the notion +that free software, openly published in source form and freely +inspected by anyone who has an interest or desire to do so, is +worthy of far greater trust than closed, proprietary, secretive +software. I for one found the installation of Microsoft's Internet +Explorer to be a very scary experience: the computer running +totally out of my control, reconfiguring itself, plugging into +Microsoft's own web sites, setting up preferences and defaults +according to Microsoft's business machinations.</p> + +<p> +Sometimes I wonder whether Microsoft's underlying goal isn't simply +to make the world safe for computer viruses. I'm not an especially +paranoid person, but how can you ever know?</p></li> + +<li><p>Consumers nowadays are so often (and so effectively) fleeced that +there is much resistance to paying for something you can get away +with not paying for, so this will be an uphill educational battle. +There is a game theory problem here: Who should I commit to paying +for a development which I can get for nothing if only I wait for +someone else to pay for it? But if everyone waits, no one benefits.</p> +<p> +There are other ways to handle this level of funding, such as +imposing taxes on computer hardware (sort of like the gas tax is +used to build roads) or even on commercial software (sort of like +using cigarette taxes for public health). Developing countries, in +particular, should support free software development, since the +notion of intellectual property must appear to them as one more +form of tribute to the rich. These approaches require political +efforts that are sure to be contested and hamstrung. I'm inclined +to start small, start voluntarily, and see how far reason and +civility takes us.</p> +<p> +It should also be emphasized that there is at present a substantial +amount of free software already written and available, and that +there are many organizations and individuals that have contributed +to the development and dissemination and support of free software. +What is missing is a systematic approach to funding development, +and a strong and consistent system for user feedback and +direction.</p></li> + +<li>I would estimate that free software can be developed to quality +standards that meet/exceed commercial software for less than 25% of +the price of equivalent commercial software. This estimate is based +on common R&D expenditure levels plus a generous amount for those +organizations which coordinate development and promote use. Given +that free software is not compelled to become obsolescent (it can +continue to be used as long as it is useful, whereas commercial +software must obsolete old product to promote the sales of new), +the costs for free software will decline over time, sharply except +for the cases where new needs arise.</li> + +<li><p>Much of this work is already being done. What's missing is not so +much the people or even the organization as a coherent sense of the +economic imperatives. To date, free software has largely been +driven by political sensibilities and the traditions of academic +freedom, which have led it into a hodge podge of areas, many of +which have very little impact on common needs and usages. (Some, +such as the Web, have had major impact, and as such have attracted +enormous commercial attention.) However, the driving force behind +free software must be economics: why do we spend so much money +propping up empires when all we really want are clean, simple +programs that do our work? And why do software professions have to +work for commercial companies when their skills and work are more +immediately needed by users?</p> +<p> +The argument that large companies (government, any organization +that spends serious money on software) should routinely support +free software development is strong and well focused. Even if such +an organization never directly used free software, its existence +would provide a damper on prices and a strong bargaining point with +commercial software vendors. It is a win/win bet: free software, +cheaper software, more options, more competition.</p> +<p> +It is completely obvious that free software organizations must be +international in scope. It seems likely that most of the support +for free software will come from outside the US, perhaps by an +overwhelming margin.</p> +<p> +This proposal does not dispute the rights of intellectual property +owners. Under this proposal it should be possible to buy or license +technology where appropriate, and inventors should consider the +possibility of selling their inventions to the free world. Whether +intellectual property rights in fact encourage innovation in any +useful way can be debated separately.</p> +<p> +Another aspect of this proposal is that it does not try to kill off +the profit motive in software development. As I envision it, most +of the free software work would be done by small companies bidding +on contract proposals, presumably with the intent of making a +profit. (The companies are likely to be small because they won't +need to float a large marketing/sales organization, which is the +main advantage big software companies have over small ones. Also +because the free software networking organizations should work for +providing sharable resources, such as capital and services, saving +small companies from having to overextend themselves.)</p> +<p> +My proposal is that free software will start out aiming to produce the +most basic and most broadly used software: it will in effect harvest +the “cash cows” of the commercial software industry, +rather than attempt to innovate at the fringes of development. (Of +course, innovators are more than welcome to contribute.) Beyond free +software there will still be shareware and commercial products, which +will to some extent compete with free software and to a larger extent +open up new niches where free software is not yet available. The free +software industry will provide a damper on the sort of prices that can +be charged. It will also help lower the costs of all software +development, and may eventually provide a salvage market for +discontinued commercial software. Shareware may be a fruitful ground +for speculative software development, with the goal being to develop +and popularize a new product that can be sold off to the free +market.</p> +<p> +Finally, I believe that no restrictions should be placed on the use +of free software: that it can be repackaged, sold, incorporated +into commercial products. Free software will reduce the development +costs of commercial software, which will help make commercial +software cheaper, better, more competitive: all good things. The +goal after all is better, cheaper, more usable and useful software: +victory is not measured in bankruptcies. The impulse to segregate +free software from commercial software is doomed, as is the impulse +to isolate free software from commerce. We live in a jungle of +commerce, which no one can truly flee from, regardless of how +offensive it may seem. The proposal here is to start to take short, +deliberate, sensible steps toward reclaiming parts of that jungle +for everyone's use and betterment.</p></li> +</ol> + +<p>This implies, of course, that (following the Reagan demonology) +Microsoft et al. are “The Evil Empire.” That's a joke, of +course, but if it didn't harbor a shred of truth it wouldn't be +funny.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p> +Please send questions and comments regarding this specific page to Tom +Hull <a href="mailto:ftwalk@contex.com"><ftwalk@contex.com></a>. +</p> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 1997 Tom Hull</p> + +<p>You may link to this document and/or redistribute it +electronically.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2019/08/03 14:55:12 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |