From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1158e3,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gid1158e3,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-14 08:21:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,ccomp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml,comp.lang.java.advocacy Subject: Re: Market pressures for more reliable software Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:53:22 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9gaj53$nlp$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9folnd$1t8$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B1FE1FE.B49AE27F@noaa.gov> <9fotpi$4k6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3b24dc21$1@news.tce.com> <3B25D5FB.15C9B240@dresdner-bank.com> <9g5as6$hbq$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g5ipg$roq$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g614i$at4$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g7r02$mni$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g840k$qjt$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <40gfitgrvd8cgu27r3vfib6eptmapb3pfl@4ax.com> <9g8lrk$37c$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 992530403 24249 136.170.200.133 (14 Jun 2001 14:53:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Jun 2001 14:53:23 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8730 comp.lang.java.programmer:76342 comp.lang.pl1:1027 comp.lang.vrml:3796 comp.lang.java.advocacy:21104 Date: 2001-06-14T14:53:23+00:00 List-Id: "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:jK3W6.8329$pb1.316095@www.newsranger.com... > In article <9g8lrk$37c$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says... > When I capitalize "Free", its to indicate that I'm talking about FSF-style "Free > Software". > Yeah, but even under FSF, I can *sell* you the program - I just have to give you the source as well. That was my point. > Nearly all software is already developed as custom software under a system where > the deveopers are paid for the development. That includes *every* project I've > ever worked on in my career. Even for most of the "licensed" commercial software > I deal with, the "support" is the most expensive part. So using Free Software > models wouldn't even noticably impact the vast majority of the software > developed. > Custom software isn't where I'm worried about the quality. You get what you pay for there. If you want something that runs forever and never crashes, you pay for the quality steps involved. Where I think there is an issue is with shrink-wrap products that you just either have to buy or ignore and accept whatever it is you get. > You bring up games. To answer your question directly, yes people *do* pay for > "support" for games. 900-number "hint lines" for adventure games are not unheard > of. Also, nearly every game company has some kind of customer support (the money > to pay for for that obviously comes from game sales, so you can think of it as > sort of a "support tax"). > I was simply trying to illustrate that there are a lot of off-the-shelf products purchased that you install, use and never go back to the company for anything. Not even upgrades. Maybe there is some percentage of the population that will want some kind of support, but probably most of the people who have "Space Invaders" or "Pong" aren't paying for that. How does the company make money if they don't charge for the software? If things like that need to have higher reliability, there has to be some kind of market pressure to do so. > >Now there might be something to the notion of software developed under the > >Ada Developer's Cooperative License (or similar) in that the guys who build > >the code only get paid if the code gets used and sold. The only way for that > > That might work out OK in a world of mass-produced shrink-wrapped software. But > remember paragraph 1: the vast majority of software *developed* does not fit > that mold. In the world in which I work, I can't use any nifty routine that's > going to add to the system's costs, because *I* don't get to make those kinds of > decisions. The folks that do are my managager's manager, who's already obsessing > about overruns, and the paper-pushers off in accounting, who require all sorts > of paperwork and market research and competitive sourcing and several weeks to > make any kind of decision (You should see us trying to buy a PC video card > before it goes obsolete. Its sad, really). Unless we are talking some pretty > significant functionality, its far easier for me to just rewrite it all myself > (and what a shameful waste of human effort that is!). > Been there. Done that. I understand. I know it is hard to market components - especially with restrictive licenses - especially to companies building a custom product with limited sales potential. It typically has to be some sort of major subsystem with well defined capabilities (databases? graphics packages?) before anybody wants to include it in their product. I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps there needs to be a variety of tiers to the payment scheme that makes it *easy* for people to get into it, but if there are any profits made from it, they give *something* to the developers who contributed code to the project. > So that license might get some lucky package shipped in lots of software copies. > But for the vast majority of *developers*, its just going to render the package > useless. > Even for the high-volume stuff, it gets problematic. Think about it. If I sell "Ada$oft Works" to the general public with a worldwide distribution of tens (hundreds?) of millions of copies, the *cost* is no longer in the engineering - its in the stamping out of disks & manuals. I'm going to give some geek in a garage 10% of each sale for having contributed 10% of the code? Guess again! I'll *eat" the whole engineering cost because it falls below the noise level. OTOH, if I have a product being custom built for some govet. contract that maybe gets handed over to the govt for one lump sum, suddenly getting me 10% of the way to completion in one transaction looks a little more attractive. Especially if it is reliable, proven software. There are still problems with the pricing structure that I think would need to be worked out - just because I bill my customer $1m for 10,000 SLOCs and you gave me 1,000 SLOCs doesn't mean I can still make a profit after giving you $100,000. And then throw in all the complexities of accounting (ask movie stars who sign up for a percentage of the profits how the studios can make sure a picture *never* amkes a profit!). Its not an easy question. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/