I think their argument is, "I think many Hollywood movies are awful. Therefore, I'm going to download ones that look interesting to me for free so that I don't end up buying a movie that I don't like."
And the reality in both cases is "I can get something for free, therefore not only will I not pay the people that have created it, I'll insult them too. But I'll keep on consuming it, because I have nothing better to do with my time."
My preference, sans reasonable access to known-good spring water, is to drink water with a pleasing set of adjuncts - be it coffee, tea, or as part of a concoction of barley, yeast, and hops.
Exactly. You choose to pay for something better than you can get for free.
If he only said that I wouldn't argue. But what he did say is:
"to encourage me to pay people what they probably don't deserve"
In other words the software is good enough for him to use, but he claims it's not good enough to pay for. That's hypocritical. If its so bad, he can choose not to use it, and then the price doesn't matter to him.
Basically it's the same hypocrisy as the people that justify downloading pirate torrents of Hollywood movies on the basis that Hollywood movies are crap.
For another app I paid only $0.10 and still didn't feel like I got my money's worth.
At $1 it's just about possible to make a living. Selling apps at $0.10 and making a living isn't a realistic proposition. Anyone stupid enough to try is probably also too stupid to be a good developer.
I wonder if everyone that's complaining that most apps aren't worth $1 are also Android users? I'm not saying that all iOS apps are good. But I am saying that the iOS App Store gives enough information in user reviews and ratings to be able to avoid the ones that are crap.
Which is why Linux, *BSD, GIMP, Blender, Firefox and all those other free projects have failed and disappeared.
The reality is that for most types of software there are at least one or two free ones that do the job. Unless you're looking for something that's elaborate or very specific, chances are that there's a free program that does it.
And in each case that you mention there is a better one that is not free.
Google search is not free. You pay with the screen space devoted to adverts. Its possible to evade that with an ad-blocker, but Google make their money from people who don't do that.
Actually, I do work for free, I volunteer hundreds to thousands of hours a year to various causes and am quite happy to do so.
There are something less than 250 working days per year. Thousands of hours is minimum 2000. So you do 8 hours a day volunteering? Well, good for you if you do. I hope its a worthwhile cause.
Why should software developers never do the same?
I'm sure most software developers would be prepared to do some work on an enjoyable project for a charity. But "people who want software for nothing" aren't in general a worthy cause.
The chance of a company like Apple or Google misusing your credit card number is pretty small. And if they did bizarrely go rogue, you could get a chargeback from the CC company.
And there isn't a high chance of your $1 app being shit if you look at the star ratings and user reviews before you buy. Good apps will have lots of good feedback, and the few bits of bad feedback will read like it came from idiots. Shit apps will have bad feedback or no feedback.
The idea that $1 apps are likely to be shit seems to come from those who have never actually tried them.
So lets make a list of those people who don't deserve payment. Developers. Musicians. Actors. Directors. Artists. Photographers. Journalists. Novelists....
All of them worth less than baristas or burger flippers apparently.
$1 apps are a risk. If it's no good, you've spent a buck for nothing, not even a lousy cup of coffee. If it's hohum, you'll probably use it, but the equation is $1certainty. In fact, a $1 app is something you either expect to suck, or will be surprised at how good it is. And since most apps suck (they do, get over it), you're rolling the dice. And you don't have winning odds.
By looking at the star ratings and reviews on the App Store you do indeed have winning odds of getting a good app. And on that basis $1 is a tiny amount for such a low risk.
I think what it really comes down too is that people have a feeling that software being sold at $1 might as well be free.
My app latest download for $1 was Parker Bros Monopoly. Professionally programmed, has already given me a few hours of fun. On PCs and consoles I've seen the equivalent sold for all sorts of prices between $10 and $30.
As to "apps", well, value is in the eye of the consumer.
And his eye is influenced by prices he is used to paying. That's the point. In any rational view of the price of things, 99c for many of the apps is stupidly cheap. But people are used to free apps, so $1 seems to simple-minded folk to be expensive for an app. Anyone who actually knows how much work there is in developing an app and what the average return is would never consider $1 overpriced.
Idiots are valuing the work of developers less than the work of baristas and burger flippers.
In my country we have a minimum wage. You can expect to earn it if you're flipping burgers or stacking shelves. Your suggestion is that developers should earn less than that. Specifically nothing. Why do you undervalue the work of developers?
(The standard Linux user answer to that is... do like Red Hat... charge for support. That argument doesn't work. That's a suggestion that support people should be paid, not that developers should be. Red Hat did not develop most of the software they get paid to support.)
The reality of fragmentation is that it's not a big deal that some people would make it..
No, it just means that you don't realise what the problems of fragmentation are.
Fragmentation affects developers. It means they either have to maintain many different versions of their software, put work into making the app auto-configure for many different devices and test it on all of those devices, program for the lowest common denominator, or make apps that don't work on a proportion of phones.
Developers do a mix of those solutions, and the result is that users generally get worse apps or apps with more bugs in, or apps that don't work for them at all.
Separate from that is the issue that newer OS version incorporate security fixes, so by not getting updates, you end up with a less secure phone.
As to your equivalent "number of updates", that would be a pretty irrelevant metric even if true. For example an OS vendor shipping one small update every day wouldn't be better than one doing a far more substantial update quarterly. They'd just be a pain in the neck.
Your contention that the Galaxy S's Android v2.1x -> 2.2x -> 2.3x is somehow better than the 3GS's: iOS 3.x -> 4.x to 5.x is stupid.
It's the length of time for which updates are supplied that's the significant factor, not the number of updates. Even if the Galaxy did have more (and it didn't.)
How do I know that Apple isn't intentionally making ios 4 run slowly on the 3GS so they'll make people upgrade?
How do you know there aren't fairies at the bottom of your garden?
With such weak-minded questions have stupid people convinced themselves of what they want to believe since time immemorial.
With Android I would know for sure - because the source code is available.
No you wouldn't know for sure, because it takes hours even to compile. You'd have to code review it all to be sure there are no intentional slow downs, and even in the vanishingly unlikely possibility that you had the breadth of expertise to understand it all, you don't have the time to properly review that much code.
Has it ever occurred to you that people who hate Apple and Apple products are rational and have good reasons?
Well let's see...
I hate Apple because they have ruined software for me. On my desktops or servers download Windows freeware or open source software and get good quality software that does not necessarily track or spy on me. I can install whatever I want. The products in the App stores are ridiculously commercial - it's so obvious to me that they just want to grab your money. There is so much trash in the stores. Why the hell should I have to jailbreak the device to get it to do what I want? When a product is so caustic to my consumer rights, why would I want to partake? The device is mine, I can do whatever I want. This business model of creating walled gardens and limiting innovation and competition has infected the technology industry. Now Microsoft and every phone carrier wants to do it too.
Actually you are irrational. YOu are not comparing like with like. You are comparing Windows Desktops and servers with Apple mobile phones. Macs are the thing to compare with Windows Desktops, and they are equally open platforms. For iPhones you'd need to compare with for example Windows Phone.
If not comparing like with like, one could of course compare iPhone with XBox, and come to the conclusion that Apple had a far more open platform than Microsoft.
Apple made iTunes which is HORRIBLE software. They are responsible for QuickTime which is worse. They install lots of junk like Bonjour.
What you are talking about is that software on Windows. On the Mac that software is great.
Apple are quite happy to take OSS software like KHTML = OSS, Apple kernels = Derived from OSS and then sell it in a ridiculously priced device that takes away user freedom.
Apple uses open source software and gives back. From KHTML they developed and maintain WebKit which is used by Android and Chrome and many others. That's the way OSS is supposed to work. On top of that they open sourced software that is entirely of their own making, such as Grand Central Dispatch. Again your complaint is irrational.
Slashdot Mirror
I think their argument is, "I think many Hollywood movies are awful. Therefore, I'm going to download ones that look interesting to me for free so that I don't end up buying a movie that I don't like."
And the reality in both cases is "I can get something for free, therefore not only will I not pay the people that have created it, I'll insult them too. But I'll keep on consuming it, because I have nothing better to do with my time."
My preference, sans reasonable access to known-good spring water, is to drink water with a pleasing set of adjuncts - be it coffee, tea, or as part of a concoction of barley, yeast, and hops.
Exactly. You choose to pay for something better than you can get for free.
Actually it looks like they've plugged both of those dangers. Password now required for each purchase, including in-app. No 15 minute window.
http://gigaom.com/2011/03/10/apple-now-requires-password-entry-for-every-in-app-purchase/
If he only said that I wouldn't argue. But what he did say is:
"to encourage me to pay people what they probably don't deserve"
In other words the software is good enough for him to use, but he claims it's not good enough to pay for. That's hypocritical. If its so bad, he can choose not to use it, and then the price doesn't matter to him.
Basically it's the same hypocrisy as the people that justify downloading pirate torrents of Hollywood movies on the basis that Hollywood movies are crap.
Not by trying to make money by selling individual copies of software.
Indeed. Because you philosophy thoroughly devalues the work of independent software developers.
For another app I paid only $0.10 and still didn't feel like I got my money's worth.
At $1 it's just about possible to make a living. Selling apps at $0.10 and making a living isn't a realistic proposition. Anyone stupid enough to try is probably also too stupid to be a good developer.
I wonder if everyone that's complaining that most apps aren't worth $1 are also Android users? I'm not saying that all iOS apps are good. But I am saying that the iOS App Store gives enough information in user reviews and ratings to be able to avoid the ones that are crap.
Which is why Linux, *BSD, GIMP, Blender, Firefox and all those other free projects have failed and disappeared.
The reality is that for most types of software there are at least one or two free ones that do the job. Unless you're looking for something that's elaborate or very specific, chances are that there's a free program that does it.
And in each case that you mention there is a better one that is not free.
Google search is not free. You pay with the screen space devoted to adverts. Its possible to evade that with an ad-blocker, but Google make their money from people who don't do that.
Actually, I do work for free, I volunteer hundreds to thousands of hours a year to various causes and am quite happy to do so.
There are something less than 250 working days per year. Thousands of hours is minimum 2000. So you do 8 hours a day volunteering? Well, good for you if you do. I hope its a worthwhile cause.
Why should software developers never do the same?
I'm sure most software developers would be prepared to do some work on an enjoyable project for a charity. But "people who want software for nothing" aren't in general a worthy cause.
Credit Card Number - I'm never giving it. ...
Finally I like to donate not pay, I get the feeling that more of the money makes it to the developer.
And how do you donate to the developer?
If there's one thing worse than a freeloader, it's a freeloader that pretends to be generous.
The chance of a company like Apple or Google misusing your credit card number is pretty small. And if they did bizarrely go rogue, you could get a chargeback from the CC company.
And there isn't a high chance of your $1 app being shit if you look at the star ratings and user reviews before you buy. Good apps will have lots of good feedback, and the few bits of bad feedback will read like it came from idiots. Shit apps will have bad feedback or no feedback.
The idea that $1 apps are likely to be shit seems to come from those who have never actually tried them.
How have you survived for 10 years without pay?
So lets make a list of those people who don't deserve payment. ...
Developers.
Musicians.
Actors.
Directors.
Artists.
Photographers.
Journalists.
Novelists.
All of them worth less than baristas or burger flippers apparently.
I would never attach my Credit card to an app store, due to having a 6 yr old in my house who loves to play with my phone.
As long as your 6 year old doesn't have your app store password, I don't see the problem.
On the other hand if you chose to purchase an app with in-app purchase for your 6 year old that would be a problem.
And I've done it 3 times with no problem whatsoever.
$1 apps are a risk. If it's no good, you've spent a buck for nothing, not even a lousy cup of coffee. If it's hohum, you'll probably use it, but the equation is $1certainty. In fact, a $1 app is something you either expect to suck, or will be surprised at how good it is. And since most apps suck (they do, get over it), you're rolling the dice. And you don't have winning odds.
By looking at the star ratings and reviews on the App Store you do indeed have winning odds of getting a good app. And on that basis $1 is a tiny amount for such a low risk.
Yes you can. I've had refunds about 3 times when I've had problems with iOS software.
I think what it really comes down too is that people have a feeling that software being sold at $1 might as well be free.
My app latest download for $1 was Parker Bros Monopoly. Professionally programmed, has already given me a few hours of fun. On PCs and consoles I've seen the equivalent sold for all sorts of prices between $10 and $30.
Why would you pay?
You can get unlimited water in the river or falling out of the sky. Why would you pay for a beverage to quench your thirst?
As to "apps", well, value is in the eye of the consumer.
And his eye is influenced by prices he is used to paying. That's the point. In any rational view of the price of things, 99c for many of the apps is stupidly cheap. But people are used to free apps, so $1 seems to simple-minded folk to be expensive for an app. Anyone who actually knows how much work there is in developing an app and what the average return is would never consider $1 overpriced.
Idiots are valuing the work of developers less than the work of baristas and burger flippers.
Do you work for free? If not, you're a hypocrite.
In my country we have a minimum wage. You can expect to earn it if you're flipping burgers or stacking shelves. Your suggestion is that developers should earn less than that. Specifically nothing. Why do you undervalue the work of developers?
(The standard Linux user answer to that is... do like Red Hat... charge for support. That argument doesn't work. That's a suggestion that support people should be paid, not that developers should be. Red Hat did not develop most of the software they get paid to support.)
The reality of fragmentation is that it's not a big deal that some people would make it..
No, it just means that you don't realise what the problems of fragmentation are.
Fragmentation affects developers. It means they either have to maintain many different versions of their software, put work into making the app auto-configure for many different devices and test it on all of those devices, program for the lowest common denominator, or make apps that don't work on a proportion of phones.
Developers do a mix of those solutions, and the result is that users generally get worse apps or apps with more bugs in, or apps that don't work for them at all.
Separate from that is the issue that newer OS version incorporate security fixes, so by not getting updates, you end up with a less secure phone.
As to your equivalent "number of updates", that would be a pretty irrelevant metric even if true. For example an OS vendor shipping one small update every day wouldn't be better than one doing a far more substantial update quarterly. They'd just be a pain in the neck.
Your contention that the Galaxy S's Android v2.1x -> 2.2x -> 2.3x is somehow better than the 3GS's: iOS 3.x -> 4.x to 5.x is stupid.
It's the length of time for which updates are supplied that's the significant factor, not the number of updates. Even if the Galaxy did have more (and it didn't.)
How do I know that Apple isn't intentionally making ios 4 run slowly on the 3GS so they'll make people upgrade?
How do you know there aren't fairies at the bottom of your garden?
With such weak-minded questions have stupid people convinced themselves of what they want to believe since time immemorial.
With Android I would know for sure - because the source code is available.
No you wouldn't know for sure, because it takes hours even to compile. You'd have to code review it all to be sure there are no intentional slow downs, and even in the vanishingly unlikely possibility that you had the breadth of expertise to understand it all, you don't have the time to properly review that much code.
I'm not the same poster but...
Has it ever occurred to you that people who hate Apple and Apple products are rational and have good reasons?
Well let's see...
I hate Apple because they have ruined software for me. On my desktops or servers download Windows freeware or open source software and get good quality software that does not necessarily track or spy on me. I can install whatever I want. The products in the App stores are ridiculously commercial - it's so obvious to me that they just want to grab your money. There is so much trash in the stores. Why the hell should I have to jailbreak the device to get it to do what I want? When a product is so caustic to my consumer rights, why would I want to partake? The device is mine, I can do whatever I want. This business model of creating walled gardens and limiting innovation and competition has infected the technology industry. Now Microsoft and every phone carrier wants to do it too.
Actually you are irrational. YOu are not comparing like with like. You are comparing Windows Desktops and servers with Apple mobile phones. Macs are the thing to compare with Windows Desktops, and they are equally open platforms. For iPhones you'd need to compare with for example Windows Phone.
If not comparing like with like, one could of course compare iPhone with XBox, and come to the conclusion that Apple had a far more open platform than Microsoft.
Apple made iTunes which is HORRIBLE software. They are responsible for QuickTime which is worse. They install lots of junk like Bonjour.
What you are talking about is that software on Windows. On the Mac that software is great.
Apple are quite happy to take OSS software like KHTML = OSS, Apple kernels = Derived from OSS and then sell it in a ridiculously priced device that takes away user freedom.
Apple uses open source software and gives back. From KHTML they developed and maintain WebKit which is used by Android and Chrome and many others. That's the way OSS is supposed to work. On top of that they open sourced software that is entirely of their own making, such as Grand Central Dispatch. Again your complaint is irrational.
Food for thought.
Junk food perhaps.