Why is there such a mindset against paying for software?

[Plastic Nev]

Thanks Starbuck for the move, a good idea.

 

Firstly, the argument for and against free or paid.

My take on it from experience is that paid for software is not always better than free, however in most cases it is.

I have quite a lot of different programs covering different area's with a quite even mix of paid and free, which I can say in most cases the paid for does a lot more than the free stuff.

However there are odd instances where the free does just one thing better than the equivalent paid for does, an example being in some of the music notation software I have, of which there are two paid for and three free. In general, the free is not as comprehensive, and doesn't have the tools that the paid for does. You can still carry out the same tasks, but for some parts of the task, it may take longer, or you have to use a work round to achieve something in the free, where the paid for is a couple of clicks and job done. That applies to most softwares.

However, there is always the odd task that a basic free program does a better job and sometimes easier and quicker. For instance, I have the American made, "Finale" by Make Music .Inc. That is a quite expensive music notation program, for composing, or rewriting music on the staff. It is up at the top of the ladder and used by some of the major music composers, like most creative software, it is only limited by your imagination for creating new music, however, it has a minor drawback, it can sometimes be poor at rendering a MIDI file to something you can work on. The free Anvil Studio does a much better job of doing that.

 

Now for image, photographic or general graphics handling programs, again I have several. Wellies mentioned Photoscape, a lovely free and basic photo editing program and easy to use, it also has a brilliant animation capability which I have used to good effect, as it is a quite simple feature which makes it fairly quick to create animations from a series of still images. However, the same can be done in Photoshop Elements, I have version 11. However, being a more complex software, it takes a bit longer to do a simple animation in Elements.

I also have and have used to very good effect, Photofiltre, a software available as a basic and free version or you can buy the slightly more complex pro version, I have only the free version.

Elements takes a small amount of time for the program to open, then if all you wish to do is resize a picture, you need to open the image handling dialogue to select the resize tool, then enter the new size. No really big deal, yet with Photofiltre, the program is nearly instant to open, then to resize, you just right click on the image which gives you instant access to the resize tools, much quicker for a simple task.

 

So, in conclusion, whatever your interests, if requiring deep and complex work, as in some of the out of bounds creations I have done, the paid for software is often better, but for simple work, the free software is often quicker, and easier to use. So in any recommendations I have in an ideal world, I will say to look at both sides and have a mixture of free and paid for softwares to do the job you want.

 

Nev.

[wellies]

Thanks for your comments Nev. I agree that free software can be as good as paid software for some purposes ..or good enough for the degree it will be used (for example: some features in the paid versions will not be needed). More the point I try to make about using free software is that it maybe should be paid for regardless if it forms part of an everyday and permanent system set-up. By that I mean the software has been installed on the computer for a good length of time and there are no current plans to stop using it.

 

I know risk I repeating some of what has been said but software needs the financial support of its users. I believe if we don't give it by upgrading to paid versions, or by making donations to free software, the quality of software will suffer. I think the current free software situation where PUPs can be deselected will progress to the degree where they cannot be deselected. This does happen in some cases already I believe.

 

It's because of our unwillingness to pay that the whole PUP situation exists in my opinion. Software developers are quite justified in wanting to make some money for their good bit of software. If they can't get this by charging for it or getting enough from donations, then I think we have to expect they will try to make money somehow. There is nothing wrong with them wanting some money for their cleverness and labours. They aren't likely to be able to charge for it because of the constant quest for free software (the mindset against paying?).

 

Software that is used once or twice for a particular job and then discarded because it has served its purpose should also qualify for a donation (in my opinion). If any software used for clearing up an infection has worked, then it has probably been worth its weight in gold. So rather than taking it for granted that such a useful bit of software can be used freely, think of the good it has done, what went into its development and pay the developer something for the trouble. As said, nearly all free software developers hope to receive donations. Perhaps thinking about paying or donating should be encouraged rather than it being put out of the question. Payment to software suppliers is good for the software and therefore the computer world in general ..again in my opinion.

 

It's been a while since I tried any of the free versions of AV/security software (apart from Comodo Internet Security) but I read that companies have turned to carrying annoying ads now? If so, that could be a sign that not enough people are upgrading to their paid versions. Not only that but even paid versions can advertise a company's other products (so I read). Perhaps that's done in the hope that those who have proved willing to pay for software might be willing to buy some more of it, so providing support for the company. Those who feel it is OK to use the software on offer freely for ages aren't likely to upgrade and provide income.

 

All in all, free isn't necessarily good.

[Plastic Nev]

So far we are looking at the deal from a users perspective, in my previous post I stayed away from this in order to give my opinion on the actual software, not the mindset.

So let's try and look at this from the developers point of view and his or her mindset.

There is plenty of open source software, this is software developed by people who do so entirely voluntarily and with no goal of financial gain for themselves. After all I am a member here as a volunteer, I do not look for any rewards and there are millions of people in this world who volunteer for all sorts of tasks with no reward, doing the job is the reward.

I used to drive railway steam engines, the reward was to have the control of a powerful engine and to give a pleasurable train ride for the passengers, with a good few other people who were also volunteers, just as another example.

OK there are quite often financial considerations, the passengers on the train paid a fare, some members here give donations, all very welcome cash, but that is used primarily to maintain the infrastructure, not to give me or any other volunteer a wage.

The same applies to open source software, donations are accepted by the developers if only to pay website fees and other background costs.

The developers are well aware that not many will consider donating, so their goal is to keep certain resources as free for all and even have the general aspect of freedom for the people. All sounds a bit altruistic, which it actually is, some people have a passion for this freedom.

 

So what about the commercial company who offer software for free?

Quite often the free version is a watered down version of the paid for software, I would be surprised if they were as altruistic, rather it is the fact that they offer a free and watered down version in the hope you will realise the software is what you want and are willing to pay for the full version. Also there are those companies who offer a free trial for a time period, then after that time period you have to pay the fee to keep using it. They tend to offset the costs of creating and maintaining free software against the money they get from those who pay for the full version, it is all part of business, and in my mind a well run business, it gives the company a good name, which is a lot more important to a business than most folks realise.

 

So, in conclusion to that, if the software is open source, it is free to use, there is also a lot of software that isn't open source as such, but still free to use and for as long as you want, if you feel it is worth a donation to the cause, fine, but you are not forced to give and the developers don't want that, they are volunteers doing it for fun, a few dollars or pounds is an added extra.

Where the software is paid for, either right away or after a trial period, if you want what that software does, you are forced to pay for it, because the mindset of the developers and the business is that they are doing it to earn a living.

 

A good look at life in general shows that the whole, either a volunteer, or a paid worker is just the way life is. Computer software is just a newer aspect in life, and just a more recent part of something that goes so far back in time it is lost in history.

 

Nev.

[Woodworker]

I did buy Photoshop Elements 12 but sent for a disc rather than downloading it online. This has brought home to me how much better it is to have a disc, thus avoiding all risk of acquiring junk which often comes with downloads.

 

If I purchase any software in future and a disc is available I'll always buy the disc.

 

David

Edited August 25, 2014 by Woodworker