Unfortunately more often than not the person who pays for the software is rarely the one who uses it. The end result is that software is purchased based on promises in the marketing material, not based on quality.
I'm not so sure. Payed-for software can get unmaintained just as well. Companies go bust, are sold, or change direction for whatever reason. Paying for a product doesn't give you any guarantee either.
Not at all. The rule doesn't state that paying for software guarantees that you're not still the product, just that if you're not paying for it, it's significantly more likely that the difference will be made up for somewhere else.
Your original seems to suggest that loss of revenue from software not working will be more severe for directly-paid software than for ad-supported software. It's not clear to me that's the case, especially given that some of the highest revenue software currently in use (consumer services from FB etc.) is ad-supported.
Anyway, this is tangential to this thread, so I won't go on about it.
The tradgedy of flawed paid software is the people who pay, and the people who use it are often different.
Accepting this after seeing it is equivalent to saying "I am okay with trading misery for profit".
That bit isnt a software problem, but its not a good look!
Another clear proof that you are easily fucked when you use proprietary softwares!
The worse for users is to remember that they paid to be screwed like this.
The customer is no longer right. Software is a zero-margin product (Stallman was right!) and monetizing it effectively means creating artificial friction for the user. All of the fatalist 90s predictions surrounding software licensing are coming true...
reply