198

As an entrepreneur/programmer who makes a good living from writing and selling software, I'm dumbfounded as to why developers write applications and then put them up on the Internet for free. You've found yourself in one of the most lucrative fields in the world. A business with 99% profit margin, where you have no physical product but can name your price; a business where you can ship a buggy product and the customer will still buy it.

Occasionally some of our software will get a free competitor, and I think, this guy is crazy. He could be making a good living off of this but instead chose to make it free.

  • Do you not like giant piles of money?
  • Are you not confident that people would pay for it?
  • Are you afraid of having to support it?

It's bad for the business of programming because now customers expect to be able to find a free solution to every problem. (I see tweets like "is there any good FREE software for XYZ? or do I need to pay $20 for that".) It's also bad for customers because the free solutions eventually break (because of a new OS or what have you) and since it's free, the developer has no reason to fix it. Customers end up with free but stale software that no longer works and never gets updated. Customer cries. Developer still working day job cries in their cubicle. What gives?

PS: I'm not looking to start an open-source/software should be free kind of debate. I'm talking about when developers make a closed source application and make it free.

Martin Ba
  • 7,578
  • 7
  • 34
  • 56
Ken
  • 793
  • 3
  • 7
  • 7
  • 76
    "Ship buggy product..." Sigh :( –  Sep 14 '10 at 07:09
  • 20
    Free software breaks? I'm sorry you choose bad free software. Have you tried something like Ubuntu? So much quality software in one nice package. And, IE or Chrome being free isn't a bigger issue to you? How's a solitary programmer going to compete with that? – dlamblin Sep 14 '10 at 22:05
  • I'm referring to free apps, not free operating systems. It's very common for an app to need an update when an OS gets revved (be it Windows 7, iOS 4, OS X 10.6). When the app is free the update rarely comes in a timely manner if at all. – Ken Sep 14 '10 at 23:40
  • 60
    I've had plenty of payware apps that have died after an OS upgrade and were not updated. – mlk Sep 15 '10 at 08:31
  • 1
    At that point the developer would no longer be selling any new copies. It must not have been selling well to begin with. – Ken Sep 15 '10 at 17:51
  • 5
    @ken, or they want you to pay for it again... –  Sep 26 '10 at 21:58
  • @ken, thanks for this post. I don't think there's a conversation happening here, but you do have a point. I released an app two years and decided to make it free for no good reason. While it's true that total sales, optimistically, would not have been more than 10K in pocket (or half that!), it would've probably got me on the road to selling software instead of services. – Dan Rosenstark Oct 25 '10 at 15:22
  • 17
    Free software breaks more than commercial software? Thats _completely false_. – alternative Feb 06 '11 at 13:43
  • 50
    99% Profit margin? Can I take some of the drugs you're on? My time isn't worthless. – Incognito Feb 06 '11 at 14:32
  • Chris and Adolf, I think your answers are great. I will be releasing an app exactly in the same way you said it. Ashvini –  Feb 06 '11 at 15:24
  • The Stack Exchange system is one of Question and Answers. It's not a discussion forum. @Joe Until you get 50 rep you can't leave comments (other than on your own posts). In the meantime look around and try to provide real answers, you'll soon earn enough rep to be able to comment – ChrisF Feb 06 '11 at 15:24
  • Also note that you can get 100 rep by associating with a (sufficiently reputable?) Stack Overflow account. – SamB Feb 06 '11 at 15:24
  • 5
    @Luis: Let's try to be a bit more civil. – Josh K Feb 06 '11 at 15:24
  • 5
    What, you mean like Facebook? That's free in terms of dollars and cents. All that it costs you is your soul. –  Feb 06 '11 at 15:25
  • @Ken, may I ask how old you are? I see a big difference in how younger Vs. older programmers/developers view capitalism in general. –  Feb 06 '11 at 20:00
  • 1
    Proprietary software also eventually "breaks". The only difference is that now you're forced to beg the original programmer to fix it, at the price the programmer wants. Vendor lock-in is no fun, and it's non-existent with open source. – Cerin Feb 06 '11 at 21:10
  • 3
    Why do people act in plays, or play music, or play sports, or paint pictures for free? – Kyralessa Feb 07 '11 at 03:16
  • 1
    Wow, that's a lot of misconceptions and bias. – l0b0 Feb 07 '11 at 09:46
  • Sometimes I feel angry at needing to pay for something I feel should be available for free. So I create the free version for myself - and everyone else. I paid for the device, I'm not willing to pay twice as much for your "special" software just to be able to do what I bought the device for in the first place. You do not deserve the extra money. You tried to rip me off, and hundreds of other customers too, see if I let you. – SF. Sep 26 '11 at 10:38
  • 1
    "Customers end up with free but stale software that no longer works and never gets updated. Customer cries. Developer still working day job cries in their cubicle. What gives?" <= the same shit happens often with commercial products (how many organization are stuck with ie6 because all of their intranet apps made only for IE6 with no update ? ) but as those are closed source you can't even think about hiring another company to upgrade it. – Arkh Sep 30 '11 at 10:28
  • Support contract! Support contract! Support contract! – Maximus Minimus Nov 30 '12 at 10:19

62 Answers62

293

Because I don't want to feel obligated to provide technical support or offer refunds.

JeffO
  • 36,816
  • 2
  • 57
  • 124
  • 4
    this is a really great answer, so much win for such a small amount of words – MetaGuru Sep 13 '10 at 18:37
  • 1
    If somebody buys something off of you, they feel entitled to certain things. Like technical support, or bug fixes, or documentation, or crap like that. Whereas if you give them something for free ... dude. Tech support? Bug fixes? Docs? It's FREE. What were you expecting? – BlairHippo Sep 13 '10 at 20:33
  • As far as I understand, the question can be reformulated as: why do you feel obligated to give your app away in the first place? – mouviciel Sep 13 '10 at 20:56
  • 13
    We've had good luck in the past with pricing simple apps at $8. Maybe it's just a Mac thing, but we found users would easily part with $8 and then wouldn't feel particularly entitled to a high level of support (they were always surprised at the high level of support they got ;) ) Actually getting money encourages you to keep working on the app, make it bigger and better. If we feel it's significantly better, then we simply raise the price accordingly, usually to $20. I don't believe in software costing much more than that. – Ken Sep 13 '10 at 21:13
  • 8
    @BlairHippo: Why would you want to be giving out buggy, unsupported, undocumented software in the first place? – Ken Sep 13 '10 at 21:14
  • 17
    @Ken: maybe because it was made for scratching the dev's own itch (and thus didn't need to be very fancy), and then the dev realized many others wish to scratch a similar itch? – Piskvor left the building Sep 14 '10 at 10:49
  • 1
    @Ken re: please don't confuse price and value. It is quite true that paying even a small amount usually means some sort of transaction cost - this requires effort, and putting in effort means the return needs to satisfy the effort. Are people paying for the software (a non-scarce good), or paying for your time/effort in making/supporting it (scarce goods)? – cofiem Sep 14 '10 at 12:43
  • @Ken - users don't read documentation. If someone had a problem with my software, I would try to help, but there is a much higher expectation when they pay for it. Like speed up your app by removing spyware from their PC. – JeffO Sep 14 '10 at 12:49
  • 2
    @mouviciel: That sort of drags in the question of, once you write the program, why not make it available to others. I suspect that many of the free programs out there are not written primarily for distribution, bit rather distributed as an afterthought. – BCS Sep 14 '10 at 19:00
  • 60
    Giving away your software for free won't stop people from complaining and being jerks. But you'll feel zero guilt telling them to go F themselves when they didn't pay for it. – John MacIntyre Sep 15 '10 at 03:21
  • @Ken - there's a difference between having good luck selling something and making a profit. Your strong opinion on pricing makes me feel like you wouldn't settle for less. – JeffO Sep 15 '10 at 12:43
  • I seriously doubt this is the main motivation behind free software... – Artefacto Feb 06 '11 at 18:44
  • @Artefacto - then what is? – JeffO Feb 07 '11 at 00:10
  • @John, sir, beautiful, just beautiful!, @BlairHippo, well about tecnical support, I've seen several companies charging support for X months, sometimes its included for 6 month then you have to pay, sometimes they just ask you to pay for support + the product.. – allenskd Feb 07 '11 at 01:00
  • Because they don't know how to sell it. They're software engineers, not entrepreneurs. – siamii Dec 30 '11 at 00:01
217

Sharing

Most of us make use of software that has been provided to use free of charge. As a result, it makes sense to share our own software free of charge as well. Basically, we are exchanging our software for the other free software but without the overhead of actually going through a transaction. There will be leaches who do not contribute, but since distribution is so cheap that does not matter.

Selling is Hard

Actually trying to sell software makes the process much more difficult as you have to market, collect money, and worry about the legal ramifications of selling to people. For a lone programmer this takes them away from what they really want to be doing. As a result they may release their program simply so that other people can have benefit even if they cannot.

A New Model

It might be argued that a new model of software development is arriving. The model of selling software is an attempt to take physical-world selling and apply it to software. However, software is not like the physical world. Because distribution is so cheap a couple of issues arise.

  1. Letting someone use your software is basically free for you.
  2. Attempting to prevent people who haven't paid for the software from using it is really expensive.

Under this view, attempting to charge per copy of the software is a losing game. Thus you should attempt to make money on software-related services, not software itself. Thus you might charge for a support contract, hosting services, etc. rather than the right to use the software itself.

Incidentally, this model is used by webcomics, web series, etc. which give the primary product away for free and sell related merchandise.

Jan Hudec
  • 18,250
  • 1
  • 39
  • 62
Winston Ewert
  • 24,732
  • 12
  • 72
  • 103
  • It's also similar to Trent Reznor's model in giving away so much of his Nine Inch Nails music. I think this is the link (but I can't watch to check because of the machine I'm using at the moment) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njuo1puB1lg – Hans Oct 25 '10 at 10:29
  • A lot of the issues of "Selling is Hard" are mitigated by the AppStore for iOS: I realize this is a unique case, but it does handle some of these concerns for a tiny chunk of a very huge market. – Dan Rosenstark Oct 25 '10 at 16:12
  • 1
    @Yar: Getting apps onto the App Store is not difficult if you pay attention to the rules and guidelines. Getting people to notice it once there, among 150,000 or whatever it is now other apps, is. – David Thornley Oct 25 '10 at 19:28
  • @David Thornley, yes, but marketing is a problem for free apps too. As the App Store has demonstrated, though, sometimes getting a million users willing to pay $1 is easier than getting 100 users willing to buy 10K in services. I think I've got the zeroes right ;) – Dan Rosenstark Oct 26 '10 at 01:24
  • +1 for "selling is hard",this is something I believe a programmer shouldn't be doing,but he has to know a little about it anyway – Mahmoud Hossam Feb 06 '11 at 11:33
  • 18
    The "selling is hard" point is something many people overlook but is very true. Most programmers are bad at it and generally hate doing it. +1 – Eran Galperin Feb 06 '11 at 15:26
  • What's more, some things are exceptionally difficult to sell. Stuff like programming tools and fundamental libraries are awkward to get adopted widely if sold; the more you charge, the less likely it is that other developers will willingly touch it. Give it away, and it acts in part like an advert for your skills and can lead to income streams that way. – Donal Fellows Feb 06 '11 at 22:57
  • selling support contracts instead of software can give the wrong incentive to software creators because they can make more money supporting a buggy/complex/poorly executed piece of software than supporting a well written and stable piece of software. – barkmadley Feb 07 '11 at 01:40
  • @barkmadley: Except that selling support contracts for buggy software means you're spending all your time supporting it, even for a fairly low number of support contracts. What you want to do is sell a lot of support contracts, so the money is coming in, but the code's so good that you spend almost no time on it. – David Thornley Feb 07 '11 at 14:46
  • Selling is hard, but it's not like you have to meet some sales quota. You were going to give it away. – JeffO Feb 08 '11 at 12:36
  • @David Thornley: yes that is the goal, but good software doesn't need a support contract. – barkmadley Feb 10 '11 at 01:58
  • @barkmadley: Organizations buy support contracts as a form of insurance. The software may be completely solid, but they can't be sure of that, and they're willing to pay some money for the assurance. – David Thornley Feb 10 '11 at 14:37
117

Releasing free apps and working on open source programs are great advertisements for selling a product, namely you. (Alternatively phrased: free apps are a loss leader for selling your time.)

There's also the concept of the "gift economy", where the more you give away the wealthier you are. Why would I not donate back to my peers/society at large when I have received so much from so many people?

Lastly, what other field allows you to directly affect the lives of millions of people by writing something that makes their lives that little bit easier?

Frank Shearar
  • 16,643
  • 7
  • 48
  • 84
  • 23
    Why? Bills. Food. – Paul Nathan Sep 13 '10 at 19:49
  • 30
    It is not an either/or situation. You can actually have a paid job AND release free software. – helgeg Sep 14 '10 at 05:43
  • 21
    @Paul I program for food. In my spare time, I also program and give away at least in part because other people gave me stuff: Squeak, SBCL, FreeBSD, exim, stunnel, epic, apache, emacs. And that's just the stuff off the top of my head. – Frank Shearar Sep 14 '10 at 06:17
  • 4
    @Frank Shearar - That's a poor business strategy. Giving away a product that has 99% profit margin if sold, so you can charge for a product that has 0% profit margin (your time) seems counter-productive. Does anyone do math? – Erik Funkenbusch Feb 06 '11 at 08:05
  • 12
    @Mystere Man: If I charged for software I wrote in my spare time, I'd be butting up all sorts of interesting barriers (much more complicated tax return, possible no-compete issues). Since I write code in my spare time anyway, I have the choice of "only I see it" or "I give it away". To me, that balance tends towards "give it away". – Vatine Feb 06 '11 at 11:16
  • 4
    So, you want to work for free, in order that someone may give you a job, instead of just creating your own job? That my friend, is what we call being a chump. – red-dirt Feb 06 '11 at 11:58
  • 5
    @Mystere Man: Maybe it isn't actually [about the money](http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/04/social-versus-financial-thinking-when.php). Maybe they're not thinking "what's in it for me?" Maybe people are actually just doing it because they want to, and maybe to help other people, and the money _really doesn't matter_. – doppelgreener Feb 06 '11 at 14:04
  • 13
    @el fuser, Mystere Man: It's an enormous amount of work running your own business, involving a lot of dogwork that I care nothing about, with a high risk of failing. Instead of, say, doing what I love all day, with a _good enough_ salary, and financial security for my wife and children. So by all means, go run your startup. Good luck. – Frank Shearar Feb 06 '11 at 14:09
  • So... find a business partner to handle that stuff for you. And honestly, once you have a wife and kids, this makes even less sense. You only have a few hours left in a day, to spend that writing code, especially when you've already spent 8 hours writing code, just steals time from your family. To each his own, I guess... but remember the **time deposits** you make with your family today pay dividends for years... Fail to make those deposits, don't be surprised if your home life ends up *bankrupt*. – red-dirt Feb 06 '11 at 19:01
  • @Jonathan Hobbs - I was responding to Frank's comment about using free software as a loss leader to sell more of your time. I completely agree that people write free software for a lot of reasons, but the reason Frank specifically gave is a poor financial one. – Erik Funkenbusch Feb 06 '11 at 19:06
  • 2
    @Mystere Man: It's funny you should say that, because it certainly worked out for me, even from a strictly financial point of view. To be explicit: the availability of my code for inspection by employers helped me land a better (in all ways) job. – Frank Shearar Feb 06 '11 at 22:51
  • 1
    @Mystere Man: Yes, _if_ I had a great, and enough capital to buy me the time to implement and market it (at _least_ 6 months to a year, I would imagine!), yes, I could resell the time I spent in development many times over. That's a large chunk of capital. Too large, in my case. It's not as simple as "99% profit margin versus 0% profit margin". – Frank Shearar Feb 07 '11 at 08:29
  • @Paul: Well, obviously those who develop FLOSS have food and are not in prison, too ... Less obvious, but most even have family; they just do not talk much about real life in FLOSS mode (why should they, they are here because of the hobby, not because of their other stuff) – phresnel Nov 23 '11 at 09:46
103

I suggest that you watch this fantastic video to learn why money is often not the motivation for doing things: RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

I recommend that you watch the whole thing, but it also directly answers your question around the 6:40 mark.

EpsilonVector
  • 10,763
  • 10
  • 56
  • 103
  • 4
    THis is probably quite spot on why people write software for free (and really why anyone does anything without charging for it) – nos Feb 04 '11 at 22:06
  • 5
    Awesome video! TYVM for sharing it! – jweyrich Feb 06 '11 at 10:39
  • 1
    He mentions Atlassian who makes really nice software. http://www.atlassian.com/ –  Sep 30 '11 at 10:42
65
  • Some people write programs for the fun of it—selling it turns it into work.
  • Some people rank the number of people who use their programs above how much cash they get for it—selling it pushes down the first where they don't care much about the second.
Svante
  • 448
  • 2
  • 10
BCS
  • 699
  • 4
  • 11
  • If you don't want to be responsible for all of the responsibilites of selling your product then atleast license it to some company and get royalties or similar. – The Muffin Man Jul 07 '11 at 08:06
  • @Nick: It's work, not because of the effort, but because I'm getting money for it. – BCS Jul 08 '11 at 16:26
39

I release my software for free because I have spent time and energy on it but have neither the time or inclination to market it, someone might-as-well benefit.

By personal philosophy is (and I do sell software too), "Competition makes you better".

If you can't create a product that blows the competition (free or not) out of the water you're going to be in trouble.

Richard Stelling
  • 2,061
  • 2
  • 18
  • 16
  • 1
    But you don't even need to market it! Just make a basic webpage and if it does something that people need, and typing that need into Google makes your webpage come up, then you'll have instant customers. – Ken Sep 13 '10 at 15:00
  • 15
    @Ken Yes but if you don't market it, nobody's going to find it, and then you're not going to get paid anyway. There are gazillion programs out there for every task. Divide the number of potential customers by gazillion and you get an epsilon percent that will be exposed to your program by sheer chance, and they are not going to buy it because they are just some teenagers who just want to use your program once, ad hoc for something. So what's the point? Without thinking about the business practices around your program you're not going to be paid anyway (not any significant amount anyway). – EpsilonVector Sep 14 '10 at 05:10
  • I'm just speaking from experience. We sell huge amount of software and about 99% of our business comes from people Googling what our software does. The first thing to come up is either our site, or an article talking about our product, which links to our site. Of course, this doesn't work in the case of heavy competition. But if there's heavy competition you've sort of already lost. – Ken Sep 14 '10 at 17:07
  • 2
    @Ken There it is: "...or an article talking about our product". How did you manage to get someone to write an article about your program? People don't usually write about some obscure audio-video format converting program buried deep in the download.com archives. Just the fact that a journalist noticed you means you invested more efforts in promoting your program than what many do-it-for-fun programmers are willing to invest. – EpsilonVector Sep 14 '10 at 17:24
  • You're writing something obscure, so you've already lost. If your program is useful to a lot of people, journalists will write an article about it. Believe me. – Ken Sep 14 '10 at 23:38
30

A lot of free apps are created by someone who is fully employed and has come up with an idea for an application that they produce in their spare time. That person doesn't "need" the money to survive.

A lot of times finding the mechanisms to market, sell and collect payment are just not worth the effort and sometimes individuals just enjoy offering something they thought as useful to the general public.

If you are competing with a free application then the best strategy is to make a better product. I've often purchased an application over using a free version just because it offered more features or was better implemented in some way.

Walter
  • 16,158
  • 8
  • 58
  • 95
25

There does come a point where enough is enough, and then there is the fact that it does take more effort to sell something even though it may be a small effort. I still need to come up with a way to collect money for example.

I think the reason I post free apps that are closed source is simply because I love full featured freeware myself, so I like sending it out to the world with the same idea in mind. When I can get a significant task done with a completely free software package it feels great, so I like to share that.

Really if the answer of 'why not make it free?' comes down to 'because you can get piles of money' then it all is about what your motivation for releasing some software is. Not everyone is motivated by more and more cash.

MetaGuru
  • 2,663
  • 3
  • 22
  • 31
  • 2
    It's less about the cash itself, but the ability to make enough of it to be able to work for yourself... not for a company or as a contractor, but entirely for yourself. Software makes doing this so easy. No office, no overhead, etc. Once you've done that you can never go back to working for someone else. – Ken Sep 13 '10 at 14:58
  • 9
    @Ken: That's not strictly true. Working for yourself entails certain bits of work that not everyone wants to be involved with. I have looked at the option of working for myself, and while I feel confident I *could* do it, I have no desire to deal with a lot of the minutiae that would come with it. I found a company I'm happy to work for, that values me, and I'm content working for them. – Harper Shelby Sep 14 '10 at 05:10
  • 2
    Question - If you are releasing it as freeware, do you have a specific reason not to release it as free software (open source)? – alternative Feb 06 '11 at 13:47
  • @mathepic if I am releasing something free then I see no reason why I can't also include the source code, though there could be a situation where one used certain code in both free and sold products and thus would want to protect the code since it is also used in the sold ones – MetaGuru Feb 07 '11 at 19:41
25

I see two main reasons:

  • An individual programmer may just want to be known and loved.

  • There is an alternate economic model behind the scene. Some famous examples: iTunes, Acrobat reader, Firefox, Ubuntu are all free but their promoters all make money with these products (selling entertainment, paid features, audience for search engines, support).

mouviciel
  • 15,473
  • 1
  • 37
  • 64
  • 1
    This alternate economic model would start to work as soon as the baker around the corner started to give away their bread in exchange for the free software they have downloaded. – Giorgio Nov 30 '12 at 10:07
23

Why does anyone offer free advice here on Stack Exchange when some people make money answering technical questions? I think this points to a basic psychological need to be generous. Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at NIH, have found that charity is hard-wired in the brain. See the Washington Post article ``If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural'' at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html

Both Kohlberg's theory of cognitive development and Gilligan's ethics of caring view people as interdependent and developing towards increased empathy and altruism. This behavior is necessary for humanity to survive and thrive.

Lewis Hyde says there are two types of economy: (1) The exchange economy (economy of scarcity), where status is accorded to those who have the most and (2) the gift economy (economy of abundance) where status is accorded to those who give the most. Examples of gift economies include marriage, family, friendship, traditional scientific research, social networks (like Wikipedia and Stack Exchange), and, of course, F/OSS.

IMHO, Eric S. Raymond and Linus Torvalds performed a miracle: transforming selfish programmers into generous programmers. This is very similar to how Elisha transformed 2,200 selfish students into generous people with the miracle of ``the feeding of the multitude.'' In II Melachim 4:42-48 Elisha must support 2,200 students. There's a famine. His students are hungry and selfish. Each of them has some food, but they refuse to share with each other. After Elisha distributed a mere 22 loaves of bread to them, they began to share with one another. Soon, not only are they all fed, but there's food left over. The true miracle is not that bread materialized out of thin air, but that those who were once selfish became generous, inspired by the example of one person's generosity. Something similar has happened over the last couple decades, as a result of the release of Linux and other free software.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
A. N. Other
  • 1,539
  • 8
  • 14
20

I get paid enough at my day job as a programmer. I mostly code on my own little projects for fun. I release almost all of what I write on my own time for free and under a free/open source license because:

  1. These are fun projects (e.g. an interpreter for a simple language, a tool to clean up JavaScript code, various small scripts, etc.). These are not "enterprise" applications. Not even small applications home users need to get some job done or for entertainment. Okay, there might be a few people who might actually pay a very small amount for some of the tools I write. But really, it would be a trifling sum, and I really don't need the money badly enough for me to consider the effort involved in marketing and selling them.

  2. As someone growing up in the 1980s and early 1990s, and that too in a developing country, I understand how it feels not to have enough money for or access to the tools I need. Payment is a big hassle for a lot of people not living in the west, and even if it is possible, a few dollars can translate to a lot of money for a student on the other side of the world. If most of the people who might actually use these tools wouldn't be able to pay for them anyway, what's the use of charging for them?

  3. As other answers have already pointed out, my own projects, as well as the effort I put into any larger projects that are not owned by me, pays off for me as advertisement for my skills. Apart from such things as making me more liked by other people, it also helps me getting noticed by potential employers and thus helps me career-wise. A freely available software is bound to be better known and more widely used to something of equal quality but not free of cost.

As other answers already point out, if the efforts of a single or a small group of people who are coding in their spare time are threatening the commercial prospects of software written by people doing it to make a living - I think it is up to the latter to work harder to make their product worth spending money on rather than the other way around. If anything, it just sets the bar higher for quality software which is good for all concerned.

It's like saying giving away your old clothes to charity hurts people in the textile industry.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
MAK
  • 1,093
  • 8
  • 14
18

I've come across quite a few app where I ask my self "You are asking for $20.00 for this crap?" I know I can do it better and in order to "stick it to the man" I release it for free.

I understand that there is lots of time and money going into those apps but I also believe that if you are going to put out a product for sale, it should be top notch or just give it away.

JD Frias
  • 401
  • 3
  • 8
  • 7
    Agreed. People should not be charging for crap. If what you can make in a few days is just as good as what someone is charging for, then obviously it's not worth $20. – Ken Sep 14 '10 at 17:09
  • I've done that once. It wasn't as much fun as I thought it would be. It's much more fun to do it for the sake of the kudos you receive (in other words, ego stroking). – Roman Starkov Feb 06 '11 at 16:00
  • This reminds me of the Timer application in Android that sells for like $10. – Earlz Feb 06 '11 at 22:20
  • Except you're not really "sticking it to the man". You might well be "sticking it" to a person trying to make a living to feed their family. Also, you're trying to solve a non-issue. If the software is so bad that nobody buys it then it will either die out in time or improve to a usable point. There is no in-between where anybody is forced to buy software that is good for nothing. – Wayne Koorts Feb 06 '11 at 23:18
18

Quality

Having the source code open, quality can improve drastically. Think other programmers improving the code, think automated source code analyzers.

Durability

Closed source tends to get lost when there is some better/more competitive product. Open Source can be shared forever.

Sharing...

is caring. Now everyone in the world is enabled to use the functionality in your app, including third-world countries.

Self improvement Feedback from fellow programmers is now more possible, is free and is offered by fellow programmers who actually care.

Freedom

I hate getting locked in by companies. Likewise, I don't want to produce software aiming for the same.

CV building

Instead of emailing a CV, you can now email a bunch of links referring to projects/patches I contributed. Cut the crap, no more bullshit bingo on the CV. Just a list of contributions.

Bible mindset

A greedy man brings trouble to his family, but he who hates bribes will live. (Proverbs 15:27, New International Version)

A business model based on selling apps is usually greedy, a business model based on free software and providing services with them less so.

Viral

Open source software is (depending on the license) more likely to get included in other software packages.

Decrease business risk

Basing software on open source components, decreases dependence on third party businesses. When a business goes down, your business is still able to gain support for the code/software. Android is a great example of how disruptive open source can be, and how current businesses carry higher risk when using certain non-open source software.

Fun

I have a project which is just fun to do. No need to require a business around it, with all the hassle coming with it.

Recognition

You can hardly be recognized by closed source. Open source opens up lots of possibilities to become recognized.

Create services market

Change the market from a per-copy based revenue model to a services-based revenue model. Example: Lots of software around the Google app engine stack is free as in beer. Google makes money from providing the infrastructure.

For the children

Piles of money disappear, but your shared source code never disappears. Future generations will be thankfull for your contribution.

Reinventing the wheel sucks

We stand on the shoulders of giants. What if Alan Turing kept his design proprietary? Would we have a software ecosystem like we have today?

Customization model

Give the software away for free, charge for customizations. For example, offer free CMS software but charge for specialized modules appropriate for custom business requirements.

Winning

Charge less for your product, and you gain customers. Going lower then asking no monetary compensation is hard. You increase chances to outcompete others.

Independence

Charging for software means becoming dependent on paying clients or paying advertisers. You might not want to need money from businesses with unethical practices.

Ruudjah
  • 558
  • 1
  • 5
  • 11
  • 2
    `We stand on the shoulders of giants.` Reminds of a great quote I read on SO once, but I can't find it anymore. It pretty much describes free software (and the concept) for me: `You can stand on the shoulders of a giant, or on a big enough pile of dwarfs...works either way.` – Bobby Feb 07 '11 at 16:22
  • @Bobby: Attribute Newton. He said that and it's one of my favourite quotes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Newton), it goes more precisely like this: `If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.`:) – phresnel Nov 23 '11 at 09:51
  • 1
    @phresnel: Yes, the original one. The modified one originates from *somewhere* on SO, most likely on a deleted question. I'm unable to find it, I mean, it's quoted multiple times through out the web, sometimes even *mentioning* Stack Overflow, but no attribution or link...makes me sad somehow. – Bobby Nov 23 '11 at 10:04
  • +1 (I would give 100 upvotes if possible) "Reinventing the wheel sucks": I think we can hardly quantify how often the wheel is reinvented (re-implemented) in the software industry. I think we could save billions of dollars of development if we only used open source software. – Giorgio Nov 30 '12 at 10:11
  • Selling apps now is greedy? Bummer, because the thngs i need to survive are not free. – Andy Sep 12 '15 at 18:40
14

Programming can also be a hobby

Many people treat programming as a hobby, writing programs for fun when they get home, and sharing them on the net, or participate in open source projects.

This is just like photographers like to take pictures and share them with the world on sites like picasa or flickr, and musicians that like to create music and share it with the world on sites like myspace.com or mp3.com, then some programmers also like to share their work with the world.

Pete
  • 8,916
  • 3
  • 41
  • 53
14

Software is free, because it's information. The expression is that "Information wants to be free."

Why is that? Why does information want to be free? Consider Stack Exchange. Do you see how Stack Exchange crushed ExpertSexChange? Why? Because the user interface is superior. What's the biggest way in which the user interface is superior? You can ask a question and get an answer without a credit card.

Money adds friction to the flow of information. Everything about charging money requires you to try to get a monopoly on information and then erect some sort of obstacle or barrier to the smooth flow of that information. It's the same with downloading a movie from the Internet. The movie is worth something, but charging for the movie adds friction to the flow of the movie's bits, and frictionless always beats friction.

Free software isn't about cheap bastards trying to ruin your business. It's about a fundamental law of information flow inexorably crushing the payware software business model. You can try to ascribe motivations to people, we can talk about joy and pain and morality if it amuses us, but the deep reason is that we have a system where information that is frictionless beats information that has friction, and inexorably the frictionless information wins.

Frictionless software beats software with friction. Sure it may be deficient in other terms, but the power of frictionless is so great that entire markets will reorganize around frictionless. If they don't, they shrink and frictionless markets beat the markets with friction.

All is not lost for you. These things take a long time to happen. Windows is still with us, Linux hasn't driven it from the face of the Earth, and iOS is very successful even though it is fighting a difficult battle against Android. But if you want slow down your losses such that you can enjoy a good living or get rich in your lifetime, I advise you to think of yourself as being in the business of information, and see friction as being an obstacle to your success. If you must charge for software, try to think of ways to do it with the least friction possible.

p.s. http://github.com/raganwald

  • That was right out of Anderson's "Free"... Who, btw, has restated his tune: "...Free is not enough. It also has to be **matched with Paid**. Just as King Gillette's free razors only made business sense paired with expensive blades, so will today's Web entrepreneurs have to not just invent products that people love, but also those that they will pay for." – red-dirt Feb 07 '11 at 03:32
  • +1 for the first sentences. I also consider source code as information, and I want to live in a world in which information/technology is freely shared. – Bobby Feb 07 '11 at 16:24
  • Then comes the interesting question. How do Stack Exchange feed their employees? –  Nov 27 '11 at 10:29
  • *"If you must charge for software, try to think of ways to do it with the least friction possible".* Cue the [freemium model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium), pioneered by that most unscrupulous of gaming monopolists, [Zynga](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga). – dodgy_coder Apr 16 '12 at 06:17
11

One of the main reasons why I'd consider releasing an app for free is because it's a surefire addition to my portfolio for future endeavors (potential job opportunities, promoting your name in the programming world). That's more than enough payment if you ask me.

Terence Ponce
  • 3,052
  • 3
  • 26
  • 33
11

As an entrepreneur/programmer who makes a good living from writing and selling software,

You are not a programmer, at least not one sharing the scientific and engineering that makes most programmers choose their field. You are an entrepreneur who uses programming to make a living (not a bad thing by the way.)

I'm dumbfounded as to why developers write applications and then put them up on the Internet for free.

Sense of charity? Sharing? Common good will? Scientific and engineering desire to advance technology and knowledge?

You've found yourself in one of the most lucrative fields in the world.

Inconsequential, even for industries outside of software. How many companies, profitable in other fields, actively engage in charity and community support?

A business with 99% profit margin,

Only if you are working on the small, playing tax games or doing something under the table. The idea of a business that is that profitable, continuously and in a manner that is sustainable is not supported by the laws of economics.

where you have no physical product but can name your price;

You can only name your price when you

  1. are dealing with a very desperate (and uninformed) client,
  2. you are a technical ace (say a MSEE specialized in RF and MW circuit design or FPGA programming or a very experienced software architect.)

Otherwise, no, you don't get to name your price because there are a lot of very capable people competing with you for contracts.

a business where you can ship a buggy product and the customer will still buy it.

And that's why you will never understand why programmers, scientists and engineering alikes (as opposed to money whores), do contribute to open source.

I would actually state that I doubt what it entails to have a successful, sustainable company, independently of the industry.

You ask Nike and they'll tell you they are in the business of making good shoes. They are not in the business of shipping a shitty product.

You ask Apple and they'll tell you they are in the business of combining the best technology with the most exquisite of user-experience aesthetics. They are not in the business of shipping shitty products.

You ask AstraZeneca and they'll tell you they are in the business of medical advancement, not on shipping a shitty product.

And those are not examples of empty rhetoric.

And so on and so on. And though it is always possible for defective products to be put on the market, all successful companies define themselves by a particular goal of excellence. Profit is a side-effect of it, and certainly the primary objective. But it is certainly not their primary drive that get things moving.

There is nothing greater than working in an environment like that. And there is nothing shittier than working with people who see profit as their main drive. Quality takes a dive completely.

You should do some reading on Warren Buffet's work or on Henry Ford's drive for quality and work ideology. Then you'll understand not only what open source is all about, but you might learn a bit or two about sustainable, successful businesses.

Entrepreneurs that don't understand that aren't really entrepreneurs. They are just peddlers riding a for-the-moment speculative wave.

luis.espinal
  • 2,560
  • 1
  • 20
  • 17
7

Start them off with a free version.

Then by version 4 start charging.

If the product is any good, people will continue to buy it.

Alternatively, go the Google route and offer a cut-down version for free, with a pro version costing a small amount extra.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
adolf garlic
  • 1,061
  • 7
  • 10
  • "If the product is any good, people will get angry!" I had this too when Xcode became paid. Even though it was only five dollars, it really pissed me off as I need to pay for something that once was free. It's free again now, though. Same goes for FaceTime for Mac OS X. –  Aug 30 '11 at 09:11
7

Toolmakers

Personally, I release the tools I use. My assumption is that the things that I build with these tools should be where I make my money. Programmers hate hassle, and most of use who live by the Unix Philosophy know that there is no need to reinvent the wheel over and over again. So, we develop tools that help us in our day to day chores, release them to the public hoping that others will find them useful, and, if we're lucky contribute to making them better. Most programmers don't want to be involved in doing mundane things over and over, we want to write NEW things that use our skills to their full potential, we don't want to write editors, parsers, databases, etc etc, and most of the time the community created versions of these tools are better anyway (ie, Linux vs M$). So when the community rises up and allows people with specializations in specific areas to do what they're best at we come up with some really cool projects that make all of our lives better.

Responsible Citizens

If you use enough free software you eventually begin to feel indebted to the community, and if you have the ability you WANT to contribute. Also, there's value in doing. I've learned more by writing software for free than I ever have being paid to do so. It's a great way to learn, and I love to program. I love to solve problems and I love being able to do it however I want. When I'm releasing the product for free there's no expectation as to what it has to do, that's completely up to me.

Nobody Wants to Pay Me

I'm still in school, so when I work on open source projects, or create my own free projects it's experience I can put on my resume. It's how I taught myself several languages, and it's what makes me a better programmer than my peer who have only worked on coursework during the duration of their education.

6

One reason is, that many software developers hate to reinvent the wheel. If all software were closed, there would be a lot more of that going on.

Open source gravitates much to infrastructure level software, like system and tools, that enable the developers to focus on the actual problem solution rather than reimplementing simple library functions a zillionth of time.

4

If you're writing a platform instead of a product, making it open source assures that people can build on it with confidence. So that's one reason.

Dan Rosenstark
  • 2,344
  • 1
  • 20
  • 20
4

You might find a lot of insight in Chris Anderson's Wired article Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business.

You will however find many examples where the developers accept donations, and maybe Flattr will succeed where micropayments have failed.

There is also other transactions being made here, although it does not involve cash:

  • Labor: Debugging and testing effort on platforms and in usage scenarios never envisioned by the original developers. By automatically tracking usage the developers get valuable information.
  • Reputation: For many programmers, programming is ever so much about the positive feedback from making the software in the first place and people cherishing the result.
  • Altruism: Making software products is relatively easy these days because of the availability of free and good developer tools and libraries. Releasing software back for free is one way of paying back to the community.
4

Because obscurity is far more damaging than not making money on one idea. Because programmers may not be living in a vacuum of living in a coding box, their own source of income may be covering their needs. Because free from price allows you to be free from support and free from obligations. Because payments mean you accept a certain liability as a provider of a service or product. There are more arguments in favour of not charging for software if your primary motivation is not to be rich.

Finally, because money, whilst a great incentive, is also a poor motivator.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
3

I've "released" (well uploaded to my website) a couple of desktop applications for free because I didn't think anyone would be prepared to pay for them.

They're very small applications and I couldn't justify charging more than £10 or so for them anyway. I didn't expect to get many users (I know I have at least one) so it didn't seem worth setting up the PayPal integration on my website to collect payments.

If I ever write something larger that I think will have a market then I will look harder and longer at getting payment for it.

ChrisF
  • 38,878
  • 11
  • 125
  • 168
3

I shared my application for free. In fact, it helped my potential customers to see how it is working and they contacted me with a proposal of buying and with some additional features to implement. Free distribution of software helped my customers to see how much beneficial it is for them.

Pavan G R
  • 405
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9
3

I write code because I enjoy writing code. Not because I want to be rich, or because I want to change the world, or anything like that. I enjoy writing code, and I like it when people get to benefit from this fact. Why should I charge them lots of money for that?

I also get to benefit from lots of people who feel the same way, and it's a way of giving back to them. I get to use Linux, and Firefox, and .... for free every day, so if I can do something that somehow benefits others then why not?

Graham
  • 129
  • 3
3

Because good software tools need some time to develop.

So you start your project and are aware that no one would pay for it, as it is.

But if you give it away for free people might start using it, provide feedback and free testing, development ideas, etc...

Finally, if all goes well you can create a non-free version and sell it.

Unreason
  • 101
  • 3
3

The free software movement insures, basically, innovation on it's most competitive scale.

Things change every day in the programming world and there needs to be a checks and balances system to make sure that everyone is up to par. Otherwise, we would be stuck with a lot of crappy programs just because people made a "Standard"(Microsoft Anyone?).

The fact of the matter is that YOU don't feel like you have the time or the resources to keep up with a free competitor. You have this complaint because it actually forces you to work to MAKE YOUR PROGRAM WORTH THE MONEY. You have to innovate and improve your program(Insert Takei "OH MY!").

Sorry, your vanilla version you planned on riding on for the next five years just isn't going to cut it. You have to constantly develop. That is what it takes.

Don't be upset because you are too lazy to work to make your product decent while people who work harder than you give it up for free.

2

Because I have the feeling that my knowledge can help others in improving their daily work. I also think that public projects increase your visibility across the globe and companies will be interested in you and possibly want to hire you. The latter of course requires that your code base is good and the project becomes popular.

halfdan
  • 111
  • 6
2

People are less willing to pay for virtual stuff like programs, plus, there are many other free programs, so your commercial program, even for 1 cent, won't sell. Also, programs can be copied easily.

"money is the human word for quatloos", that's why some programmers avoid it.

Ming-Tang
  • 856
  • 5
  • 15
2

I'm in love with coding! I really feel excellent when I think of somebody who's using my applications around the world. This was the first reason for my free applications. I should confess that I make a living with programming, besides I love producing free applications.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
2

I tried my hand at selling a product that made working with Access SQL much easier, fun even...

I have a few dedicated users who love it, but it has not made me "loads of cash". I am now considering setting up a blog and offering it for free. As I no longer work with Access (ASP.NET MVC now), it doesn't hurts me and why not give back to the community that got me going?

Tech support has been hell, writing the installation was not my core skill, so on and so forth. Collecting money was as simple as using PayPal, so don't see that as an issue.

So my motivation is giving back to the community. I write articles for the same reason (for example, 4guysfromrolla.com), but with a lot of these websites getting bought up, it is probably time to set up my own blog. Money? A bit of advertising, maybe. Or selling my collection of short stories on Amazon.co.uk (The Kingfisher and other stories, by Andrew Wrigley)...

And yes, being loved. Money can't buy that, can it?

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
awrigley
  • 111
  • 2
2

My application is free because the service, which it is a client for, is free. I don't believe any of my users will expect to pay me for a service that they can get elsewhere for free...

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
Jasarien
  • 656
  • 4
  • 9
2

The customer wants - and pays for - solution, not software. If you want to see your customer satisfied, you should do a lot of customization work for him/her, not just throwing the software install CDs into his/her PO Box.

Even big software companies, who sell licences at horrible prices, provide (I mean: sell) additional services beyond the licences. From a tight angle, open source looks like a co-operation of smaller software companies to minimize development costs and set licence fees to zero. It looks like a win-win situation for the software company and the customer.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
ern0
  • 1,035
  • 3
  • 8
  • 14
2

I think because every programmer has the appetite to program and to satisfy that they make an application but once they made it they want recognition and that's why they make them free :) Just like I have written tutorials for free. :)

Martijn Pieters
  • 14,499
  • 10
  • 57
  • 58
2

People give away software because it makes them feel good to give away software. Maybe they could sell it, maybe they couldn't. Who cares? It's their time, they own it, and if it makes them happy to donate some of their time, how is that any different than giving money to charity?

Different things make different people happy for different reasons because they're different people with different priorities.

As for this being bad for the business of software... ultimately, all software can be had for free. ALL software. So if your business model (to paraphrase Cory Doctorow) depends solely on your bits not being copied, you've got a problem to start with.

The fact is, people do pay for software, and large companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for software, because they have special requirements and need a custom solution. That market, the market for programmers, isn't going anywhere.

philosodad
  • 1,775
  • 10
  • 14
2

Your question has several assumptions I'd challenge:

  • The existence of free software diminishes the ability to make money.
  • The existence of free software inures customers to the cost of programming time.
  • Creators of free software invest their time and energy into these projects with no thought of later commercial gain.
  • Creators of free software have no reason to support their work; conversely, commercial software has an assumed high level of support for the very reasons you state (new OS, in your example).

However, to directly answer your question, I think it'd be safe to say the motivation for some is they simply wish to create a thing. Actually /selling/ the project is an exercise outside of programming and creation, and a work unto its own; sometimes programmers just wanna program. That statement doesn't mean that the quality of software or community support will be any better or worse than commercial software, but it does instill in me a greater instinctual regard for the product.

netshade
  • 131
  • 1
  • "The existence of free software diminishes the ability to make money" - I would definately say, the existence of free software makes one question why some software needs to be so expensive. If git is free, why should I pay thousands of dollars for ClearCase – Pete Feb 06 '11 at 15:20
  • You bias the argument. Git's existence doesn't exclude the need for ClearCase, nor does it exclude the need for software authors to be consulted to create add-ons for Git, support Git installations, teach Git, etc. – netshade Feb 06 '11 at 16:12
  • I'm curious, how do open source projects(and freeware) can be monetized? I tried to go for it since I love the open source community but to be honest there's no easy way to gain a fair income. For example, if you add google adsense, most of the people already have their browser with Ad Block, if you ask for donations, keep waiting as it will rarely happen (unless you get a lot of publicity by other users spreading the word of your product), people will "expect" support for free too due to the nature of the project. – allenskd Feb 07 '11 at 00:56
  • Some projects create commercially licensed versions of their code, that allow for businesses to embed their code w/o attribution in closed source projects for a cost. Other project authors (or project contributors, natch) open source some components, then make a fairly good living acting as consultants for that project; Rails, for instance, is open source, but there is a very, very healthy community of consultants creating code based on it. – netshade Feb 07 '11 at 13:43
2

Intrinsic Motivation.

I make things based on ideas that are worth a lot of money, laser projectors, custom-programmable lighting products for homes, modified video game systems which is a business in itself (windows, JTAGs, lights, painting, repairs, etc), and I give away my designs and detail my methods for all to see. I don't care about money, I care about creating, and hope that others can gain something from my creations.

When programming, I don't care if people want to buy my product and I can make millions of dollars. If they are able to encode a better video through a plugin in meGUI, or Open Office allows a person in a third-world nation to type a paper for a better education, I'm happy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_motivation

2

A theory in psychology: Maslow's hierarchy of needs, money is NOT enough for a human being.

  • Esteem: Programmers need more respect of others out of company, they need to be praised as "wow, It must be a talented programmer!".

  • Self-actualization: They may not write their favorite code as they want in company's project. So they write their code with own styles and design and publish them. During the process, they are project leaders, architects and bosses:)

卢声远 Shengyuan Lu
  • 1,539
  • 2
  • 16
  • 25
2

FREE is easy, no pressure, no tensions (marketing, legal, support, finances, ..).

I will go with an ad based approach if my app is something server related (hosting content and stuff can cost a lot of money). Ads can fetch some money if not lots but it definitely covers server/maintenance costs.

I don't have to deal with bad bad pirates!

Good Karma!

ThinkCode
  • 101
  • 2
2

Problem: You're using both meanings of the word "free" at once, which is confusing. Free Software (capital letters) is often, but not always, an ideological position. It can also be practical. How can you collaborate on closed-source code?

As for freeware ("free as in beer"), some people do it to advertise their skills or as a taster, to encourage people to buy a more full-featured program. I have a freeware video converter which prompts me to install browser toolbars every time I use it. I don't use it often enough for this to annoy me.

TRiG
  • 1,170
  • 1
  • 11
  • 21
2

There are several reasons for making software available for free. It could be, that the software is only written to produce something else - making the source free, offers the opportunity to incorporate bug fixes and features by third parties without having to pay them, while you can get money out of what you produce with that software. See "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".

Another reason is that you write the program for fun and/or training and getting comments on your code by peers or even more capable persons than yourself might be more important than earning money - in this case, selling the software for a profit wouldn't be profitable at all.

And there's the third option of high skill linked with high self-esteem, where you take the route of Tarn and Zach Adams and make a living off the donations you get. Dwarf Fortress (programmed by Tarn Adams) is available for free, yet receives thousands of dollars in donations per month.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
Antsan
  • 47
  • 5
1

If you produce closed source, paid software, it's likely that you had to pay for libraries and other gimmicks to develop your product. What you earn must be subtracted of the amount of money you spent in developing that product, not only the time. This leaves a very small net income.

If you use open source free products, you didn't spend any money to use them, but you are also obligated (by some licenses) to reuse the same license for your software. You paid "in code", rather than "in money". It's a different economy, but it gives products anyway.

Stefano Borini
  • 2,026
  • 3
  • 22
  • 32
1

Well, I post some source code to my website (at the moment, terribly outdated). In part, it is sort of a portfolio idea.

I would be very happy to sell my software for scads of cash if I had a decent product idea that some open source junkie couldn't clone and give away. Since those kinds of products are pretty hard to do solo or with a few other people, I decided a few years ago that the embedded systems/hardware market was a more financially sustainable career, and today I am happily working in a cubicle at a embedded systems company helping create ultra-high-reliability systems that make the world a better place.

Also, business - real business that pays all your bills - is hard to do right by yourself, in general. If you don't want to take that risk or deal with the hassle, it might be easier to simply give it away and keep the day job and just make small programs as a hobby.

Paul Nathan
  • 8,560
  • 1
  • 33
  • 41
1

What are your best memories in life? are they receiving a paycheck? buying a new car? If they are I really feel bad for you. My favorite moments in life have to do with accomplishing something I set out to do, hitting a home-run, meeting a romantic interest. None of these things have a price tag on them or could.

To answer your question why would I spend my time developing software and releasing it for free? because maybe someone sees it and they think of a use for it I never could have imagined, then they integrate it in their system and produce an entirely new use for it. Discovering something new is priceless , think of the first time you saw a computer. incredible. You would want to be a part of this.

If you put a price on everything , then not everyone can use it, people wont use what they don't know in their designing of a new concept, nothing new is ever created, or does so extremely slow.

Think of software as information, in a way that's really all that it is, 1's and 0's. Information is free, broadcast on televisions, radios, websites, etc. Why do we do this? so everyone knows whats going on, so we can all decide what to do next. if we aren't on the same page, we can't come up with the right solution. Nobody ever made anything that was truly great with a paycheck in mind. People do things to improve life, because they want to challenge themselves and create something they can be proud of.

1

Because we simply want to. If you spent hours making a 3d game of tetris in OpenGL, you probably did it as a labour of love and had a lot of fun doing it. You didn't do it for money, that didn't even enter into the thought process. The challenge and accomplishment was it's own reward, something more challenging and fun.

I didn't want to make money off of this. It's like saying why should I share my thoughts on SO when I can sell them in a book?

Incognito
  • 3,458
  • 2
  • 25
  • 38
1

Often when programming I find myself with an idea that I can't get out of my head. Something that I just need to do. So I'll code it - I go into a "state" where I can visualize everything that needs to happen and I wind up creating something. The tool had to be made, but after the initial "burst" I'm a bit exhausted.

In the end though, the tool doesn't really "live" until it has people using it and enjoying it. Like a short story or a play or a move or whatever. So ... give it away and hope it enriches the lives of others.

From there though, maybe another person likes the tool and adds something to it. Then the tool takes on a life of its own.

I can speak for everyone, but a lot of the big open source / free projects seem to have that going on.

There's also the fact that there can be a lot of money made by giving away a free product. Google, Facebook and Zynga are prime examples of "free" software that finds money somehow. If you'd prefer a more concrete example (actual software) look at a company like "Red Hat" - Linux is free, they make money teaching people how to use it.

Alex C
  • 189
  • 7
1

One word. "Taxes". Our tax system is so bizarre and painful to deal with that any things I do on the side I just throw out there for free. I don't have the time and energy to fight with all the taxation issues that come up from selling. Selling software would become a net loss for me.

Brian Knoblauch
  • 4,170
  • 1
  • 17
  • 20
1

I can understand giving away segments of code for free to help others. However, fully made systems that compete with small to mid size companies trying to get off of the ground, offering support, where the open source counterpart does not and the 'go f yourself attitude' as stated above, I don't understand.

I could see systems built by these sections of code, snapped together like legos. However, then we're creating the atmosphere of software at your own risk, thus lowering the overall trust of our profession by the consumer.

Personally, the whole 'I make enough money at my job so I don't care' argument baffles me. I make a fair wage but am not well off enough to start my own philanthropic organization.

asp316
  • 138
  • 1
  • 7
1

Here's another perspective that I did not see in any of the given answers already.

Do you drive a car? I think most people in this country do, and yet the vast majority don't get paid for driving. In fact, they pay quite a bit for it: the car, the fuel, the repairs, the insurance, the registration, and so on.

Everything you said about writing software also applies to driving. I see people on the highway and think, these people are crazy! You can earn money for driving but instead they do it for free.

And I don't just mean you can be a race car driver, though that's obviously a pretty cool way to do it. For under $100 you can register as a commercial vehicle and legally take paying passengers in your car. (Imaging pulling up to a bus stop and offering to take 3 people downtown for $1 each -- they save money, you make money, you were going that direction anyway. In a month you've paid off the license fee.)

Do you not like people paying you money? Are you not confident enough in your driving? Are you afraid they're going to start calling you at home?

The real answer is probably that it's a hassle, and unless you plan to start a taxi company, you won't make that much money off it, so it's not really worth the trouble. Sounds pretty much like software to me.

This isn't unique to driving, either. Every day everybody does a thousand things which somewhere, somebody gets paid to do. Taste coffee? Clean a bathroom? Listen to music and give your opinion of it? Ride a bicycle? Have sex? Yup, every one of these can be a paying occupation, and in every city in the country people (suckers!) are doing these things for free, or even paying to do them. That's crazy. That's life.

Ken
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • That's an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure it's right to compare it to everyday driving. The analogy would be more accurate if you were constantly picking up strangers and giving free rides in your car. ;) – Ken Jul 13 '11 at 13:36
  • It seems like the only distinction is whether other people get value from me action, but is that relevant? When I put some source code on the internet, it does not impact me at all whether nobody uses it or whether 1000 people use it -- usually I don't even know. It's really only a useful distinction to make in the physical world where providing value almost always comes at a real cost to the one providing it. I think if it was possible to give people rides for free without even knowing it and without it costing you anything (like free software) a whole lot of people would. – Ken Jul 19 '11 at 02:52
0

There are other ways to make money than to charge directly for the software. Facebook is free software, but it brings in millions.

eds
  • 751
  • 5
  • 9
0

Because I don't like to write support documents along with application /software. Maybe some company like it, buy it and land me a job.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,050
  • 2
  • 12
  • 14
0

I'm not a professional developer (and I'm far from being a decent developer at all), but, among other things, selling (money involved) a buggy product would concern me so much. Besides, I don't think free software breaks more often than paid software (we all know some examples of this).

And finally, in my humble opinion there are plenty of business models that can be followed to earn money without charging for the software. I'm sure that 40 answers take good care about that.

astrojuanlu
  • 172
  • 9
0

Well I offered my apps for a long time as freeware. Simply because I didn't believe people would pay money for my apps or that I wouldn't sell more than a handful apps a month so the extra work of implementing payment processing, etc. seemed pointless to me.

I guess that's how many people think. They rather give their products away than to try to sell them.

Luckily one year ago I tried out selling one of my apps and was pleasantly surprised.

jsz
  • 111
  • 5
0

Econ 101 - In a perfect market of infinite suppliers and sellers with no asymmetry of information the price for a product is solely dictated by the value of a person's time.

0

A good example for distributing a software free and open source: The Kinect for XBox stuff.

Some programmers started to use it as a device on their PC's and programmed some code, many other programmers were able to use that code and develop it further with many other ideas. If the initial programmer would closed the code and put it on for sale, it would have NEVER grown that fast.

0

There's also the fact that you get a sort of gratification knowing you're helping people do something that they themselves couldn't. By making it free, you're also making it obtainable and easy to share; essentially, you're building a name for yourself, with people who trust you. Lastly, it could be a sort of belief thing. You could be programming because you believe things should "be" a certain way. Take the jailbreaking community, for example. The programmers and hackers in the iPhone Dev Team spend a good bit of time looking for exploits and creating programs that use them. They could make tons of money by charging a few bucks for the jailbreaking programs they've created, but they don't.

There's also the threat that if you don't make it free, someone else will.

0

Two words, Advertising Revenue.

0

Most of what I have released for free has been tools. Useful tools that I use for multiple clients. Had I written any of those tools for a specific client, and charged them for the development, I would not be able to use those tools at other clients.

I am able to charge for the time to implement those tools at other clients, and in doing so I have made back multiple times over what I would have made just writing those tools as a project for hire.

0

I was attracted to writing software for the sheer joy of creativity. Although my contributions have been humble and unimportant, my giving has always been a manifestation of that perspective.

user2980
  • 103
  • 7
0

I want some help in making the thing work. If it's good enough, other people will chip in with their free time to improve my little tool beyond what I'd hope to make of it.

For instance, I wrote a small Mercurial extension, and within two weeks I got two other guys that fixes a bunch of bugs and added some new features, without me doing anything at all. (Well, inspect changes and pull them into my repo.)

Win! :)

Macke
  • 2,576
  • 16
  • 16
0

I remember when Zope first started off, the developers were putting it out there for free. A venture capitalist came in and asked them basically "why you are doing that." The answer that he received started him in a new business model: free software, paid services. This is where a company puts out free software, but "expert" advice and setup of that software would be marketed in the normal fashion. The FSF and Cygnus Solutions are two companies that had a similar relationship early on: FSF published GCC/G++ for free, Cygnus provided extensive, direct customer support.

Arcege
  • 271
  • 1
  • 3