Re: RE: Future with Ada

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <gb6U7.9423$xl6.1003584@rwcrnsc54>, tmoran@acm.org says...
>or something to pay the rent.  Of course one could make an argument that
>programs, like paintings or music, are what the economists call "public
>goods" which will only be supplied adequately if the government (through
>DoD funding of universities perhaps?) pays for it...

I wouldn't agree with that. I've spent my entire career developing software that
was never directly distributed to more than one party. Developing software is a
valuable activity, and *that* is what should (and will) be paid for. It is also
the expensive part, so it is the most sensible part to charge for.

Sure there are some companies trying to mass-market commercial software with
"tolls". But most software developers are still either working directly for
their users, or for some kind of "hardware" vendor (who needs that software so
they can sell their hardware). I see no reason why we wouldn't be just as well
off today, if not better, if all those toll-based software companies didn't
exist, and instead developers were occasionally paid to add a new feature here
or there to the standard word-processor or database that their company uses. It
wouldn't alter my job (or pay, most likely) one iota, except that I wouldn't
have to waste time installing license managers and typing in software keys.

Another relevant term I have heard from the world of economics is a "Natural
Monopoly". The basic idea is that cost of developing the infrastructure is so
high compared to the cost of running it that it really doesn't pay for anyone to
even try to compete by building their own. In such a mileu, you *will* have a
monopoly. Its just a matter of how regulated you want to make it. 

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.