(long and repetitive) Re: [Fsf-india] Freedom, affordable costs...

[Pappu]

On Thursday, 11 April 2002 02:16:56 +0530, Frederick Noronha wrote:
 > * As things stands today, in a country like India, the overwhelming bulk
 > of citizens can't afford software prices. 
.......
 > This includes a
 > significant chunk the 200-300 million middle class which we often talk
 > about, as an example of India's purchasing power. If these people don't
 > have the economic freedom to utilise software,
You seem to miss the point again. The free software foundation or some
volunteers developing  free software are  not the only people  who can
provide low cost or no cost software. The large software companies can
do  it  and  they  can  do  it  better,  but  they  don't  give  users
freedom. Their goal to to get the users addicted to their software, so
that they can't change in future, when the price goes up. 

For an MNC, giving a few products  away for no cost is not a big issue
at  all. They already  have more  than enough  international corporate
customers   and  service   contracts   to  sustain   and  grow   their
business. They  can easily  afford to lower  or remove the  price for
some of their their products for a few years, and thus nullify the low
cost/no cost claims of free software. 

 > what 'freedom' are we talking about? Is the software professional's
 > "freedom" necessarily opposed to the "freedom" of the user? 
Both are equally important, but (I am repeating), 
  * NEITHER the user NOR the developer gets "Freedom" from proprietary
    software. 
  * Proprietary software can easily be cheaper than free software. 

The  assumption that  starving free  software developers  is  the ONLY
reason for not mentioning the low cost/ no cost of free software is not
correct. It is just one of the reasons. An equally important reason is
that the  low cost/  no cost  feature of free  software can  easily be
proved to be a MYTH by proprietary software companies.

 > It seems we've gone too far down the road with this (once-valid) unstated
 > assumption that computer owners must be rich, and therefore they *should*
 > be  able  to  pay  almost-extortionate prices  for  even  home-user
 > software. 
There are many schemes in  other countries, where home users are given
a  computer with  enough software  (non free)  for no  cost.  The only
obligation is these schemes is that the users should subscribe to some
online  service from  some  company.  Such schemes  can  come in  many
different varieties, many of which will be suitable for a country like
India. Such a deal will take  away freedom from the user, but the user
doesn't loose much money. 

So we can't get much far by claiming no cost/low cost. It is not about
starving developers. It is about the middle class and any one else who
wishes to develop or use general purpose software.

 > * Costs is the most  significant factor in a price-sensitive market
 > like India, and, I guess, for large segments of the Third World. 
But  free software  don't  have  a  provable advantage  here.  So  its
significance is null and void in our context. 
 > least I still do!) Didn't Nirma detergent or Amul Pizza become such a big
 > hit  because   of  the  marketing-model   they  choose:  low-price,
 > high-turnover? 
True, but  unlike pizza or  detergent, software vendors can  afford to
play the  low cost game.  The same strategy  won't win in the  case of
software. 
 > 
 > In doing so, in fact, such firms widening the market to include those who
 > would never, for example, ever think of buying a pizza. 
By giving  Internet explorer free,  and reducing cost of  windows, the
concerned company can  widen their market to include  people who would
never, for example,  ever think of using word  (most people don't need
such a powerful word processor for preparing any document). 
 > If our markets are so price-sensitive, are we doing the right thing by
 > overlooking this reality. 
No,  but as I  mentioned above,  we are  not in a  position to  get any
advantage of this factor.

 > From another perspective, wouldn't the very nature of *free software*
 > (being open in design and 'free' in replicability) result in the pulling
 > down of costs? 
I am not sure how this will happen. Could you please explain?
 > Should we presume just because someone pays less for the initial product,
 > our own potential for earnings would necessarily drop? 
The point  is, we are not the  only ones who can  think otherwise. The
proprietary vendors can also understand that just because someone pays
less for the  initial product, their own potential  for earnings would
*NOT* necessarily drop. And they can afford to be aggressive.
 > aren't we walking into the Microsoft logic? 
This company (and all such companies) have efficient managers who know
how to tackle all sorts of markets.
 > I'm not suggesting everyone on this list opts for the life of being a
 > *sanyasi* or a hermit. Professionals will continue to be professionals,
 > and  will continue  to  charge for  the  value-added services  they
 > provide. 
Proprietary  software  companies  are  already  doing  this  for  many
years. There is nothing new in this.
 > If people can't afford to pay at what have now become standard software
 > prices -- and price is a big issue for most of the people, in much of the
 > Third World -- can't we point them to this solution? 
For this particular problem, low cost or no cost non-free software can
also  be projected  as a  solution. Where  is the  advantage  for free
software in this?
 > 
 > Fears that once people get used to 'free' or low-cost
 > (pricewise) software, they won't be willing to pay... are only
 > fears. 
The non-free software  vendors also know this. Where  is the advantage
for free software?

All other  factors being same (free  software may be in  a worse state
in some cases) Freedom IS the ONLY advantage that can get free software
any where, in a any kind of market (rich or poor). 

bye,
pappu.