Hacker Read

feikname · 2021-08-10 23:25:09

Could also be reverse: why pay for software that won't run on your computer anyway?

bjornlouser | karma 488 | avg karma 2.53 · | 2023-06-22 12:43:35

Ah yes, because people won't pay for software that has a few bugs.

seanhunter | karma 10753 | avg karma 4.14 · | 2022-03-06 12:34:40

The counterpoint to this is that paid-for software often does not include any sort of support that's worth having.

jjnoakes | karma 2590 | avg karma 1.82 · | 2018-04-01 05:58:35+00:00

Because the product being bought isn't software.

diogenescynic | karma 3944 | avg karma 2.65 · | 2011-08-18 20:23:53+00:00

Because the person buying the software isn't the person using the software.

scarface74 | karma 25313 | avg karma 1.25 · | 2019-10-08 10:40:56

And what’s the problem with paying for software you use?

moron4hire | karma 11137 | avg karma 1.67 · | 2014-02-21 16:38:53+00:00

What's the story here? I'm always willing to purchase software if it's actually good.

city41 | karma 10113 | avg karma 3.53 · | 2021-12-11 20:06:40

Doesn't the reverse hold true too? If you rely on software you paid $0 for and it fails you, you got what you paid for.

olalonde | karma 25101 | avg karma 4.21 · | 2014-03-28 07:37:00+00:00

The obvious question is why don't you use your software instead of selling it?

vorticalbox | karma 1290 | avg karma 1.73 · | 2021-08-01 08:08:44

Because you paid for software you can no longer use.

imposterr | karma 425 | avg karma 3.32 · | 2020-11-26 02:16:33+00:00

Try explaining that to customers who paid for the software and don't understand why they have to pay again.

zrm | karma 2716 | avg karma 3.04 · | 2019-06-26 05:41:03+00:00

> Then the bean counters say "why are you buying this software, when you could have gotten it for free."

Because it's the "officially supported" version and companies don't like running software that isn't eligible for official support.

reply

Wowfunhappy | karma 27196 | avg karma 3.43 · | 2021-02-01 17:51:32+00:00

Because otherwise you can't use the software?

TrevorJ | karma 5283 | avg karma 2.18 · | 2021-04-09 18:52:29+00:00

I fail to see how this isn't objectively worse than purchasing software outright.

bregma | karma 4327 | avg karma 2.33 · | 2020-10-29 10:45:49+00:00

You can only ever run software for one architecture on a single machine, why pay for getting stuff you can't use?

wmeredith | karma 11286 | avg karma 4.23 · | 2010-09-08 12:12:10

Yeah, but your really just shuffling costs around. You're either paying up front for a supported product or paying for staff that knows the unsupported product. In this particular case they got hosed by a shitty product, but that doesn't translate into a reality of not having access to the internals of software being (always)dangerous.

teeray | karma 7296 | avg karma 5.09 · | 2024-04-29 01:14:49

> Customers refusing to upgrade on-premises software

After a certain period of time, that software worked just fine for those customers. Photoshop is a great example. Sure, you won’t get the flashiest features, but CS4 will still work for you on a Win7 machine without any additional fees paid.

reply

marcosdumay | karma 27273 | avg karma 1.67 · | 2016-11-09 14:23:09

Support might be a reasonable reason, yes.

But crapware can not pay that much. The crapware creators themselves get less revenue than licensing costs, and they can kick back just a fraction of that revenue. (That is, unless they have another business model that isn't selling licenses or spying on users.)

reply

EvanAnderson | karma 12548 | avg karma 4.53 · | 2020-12-30 23:09:03+00:00

Which is a good reason to eschew software that's delivered via third-party servers versus running on your hardware.

danjaouen | karma 36 | avg karma 1.64 · | 2012-09-24 01:05:35+00:00

Why don't they just start charging for it? Personally, I'd much rather run software that costs money but is high quality than software that is free but riddled with adware.