I wonder whether there are a lot of vested interests out there who would like to drive the cost of software to zero
Yes, I would like to drive the cost of software to zero, for the same reasons that I would like to drive the cost of energy, housing, and food to zero.
and make us all work for a wage providing 'services'.
This is in fact how most developers are paid today. It's a relatively small minority that's writing software for sale to end users.
There are entire categories of software now where people are now conditioned only to accept an open source product. Can you imagine anyone building a new computer language now, commercially? If it was even vaguely successful it would be cloned and forked so quickly it'd make your head spin.
And that's good. The market has figured out that using a proprietary programming language is a very bad idea. And by reducing the costs of development software, the demand for developers is increased.
>Yes, I would like to drive the cost of software to zero, for the same reasons that I would like to drive the cost of energy, housing, and food to zero.
Then you're going about it exactly backwards, the worst possible way.
Wages/prices are driven by perceived value and constrained by price floor. If you want me to work for free then you first have to get energy, housing and food to be free. As long as I have to pay, I have to charge. What kind of stupidity leads one to first kill wages instead of rent seeking?
>This is in fact how most developers are paid today.
So what? The reason many of us are in this field is because it is one of the few left where we have the potential to escape wage slavery. If you want to close that door expect to meet resistance. You're basically telling us all to get back in the mines and stop dreaming about the future.
I wouldn't assume most developers are paid for providing services, there's an awful lot of developers out there writing code for products used internally or as part of a projectthat is sold at a significant price to very large customers.
I'd almost say that most developers are paid to write software and not provide services. Though it really depends who you refer to as 'end users'.
there's an awful lot of developers out there writing code for products used internally
Exactly. I consider that to be more on the "services" side because the ultimate goal is for Bob to get his TPS reports, not to produce a J2EE reporting framework.
A better way of expressing my point would be that most developers aren't in competition with open source; it's much more likely that open source software allows their jobs to exist.
Microsoft, EA, Apple, Valve, Blizzard, Riot Games, all microtransaction-financed games, every iphone developer that sells their game instead of using advertisements for income, they're all developing software that make money off that initial software purchase.
I think his point is that developers provide the service of development to their employers. Employees at Microsoft, Apple, Valve, etc. don't really make a significant amount of their wage from sales, they make it for hours of work. In other words the argument is: "what is the difference between contracting for someone and working for them full time?" At the end of the day its just you providing a service for some period of time, compared to actually writing your own app and selling it on the App Store.
The subtle counterpoint would be in companies that hand out stock options,where there is a sort of indirect correlation between the sale of a unit and your wage.
Yes, I would like to drive the cost of software to zero, for the same reasons that I would like to drive the cost of energy, housing, and food to zero.
and make us all work for a wage providing 'services'.
This is in fact how most developers are paid today. It's a relatively small minority that's writing software for sale to end users.
There are entire categories of software now where people are now conditioned only to accept an open source product. Can you imagine anyone building a new computer language now, commercially? If it was even vaguely successful it would be cloned and forked so quickly it'd make your head spin.
And that's good. The market has figured out that using a proprietary programming language is a very bad idea. And by reducing the costs of development software, the demand for developers is increased.