One perspective is that people are trained to be too cheap because of market incentives, but another perspective can be even well-informed consumers make a reasoned pricing decision that concludes with free or low cost software. And if you want to make a normative point, you can say that this is bad for small companies trying to make software for these consumers, but you can also say that consumers are benefiting more by purchasing the software's complements rather than the software itself.

1. Most people are not aware there is such a thing as libre software, let alone why it would benefit them. Most people therefore will not channel their frustration at this move into a demand for libre. In fact, most people won't even realize apple did anything. They'll blame the original developer.

2. In apple's view, if there is 32-bit software people need or want, some developer will fill that gap. Apps to them are easily replaced and ephemeral. That is not necessarily wrong or in conflict with the view that all software should be Free.

So I don't think this decision matters much or will have much consequence. But it still is regrettable.

... on a platform that is definitely not free/open, and definitely not on the low end of the price scale.

"Free" software is great, except for the expectations some bring that everything should be free, and nobody should profit from their efforts - except for Apple apparently.

I use a mix of Apple products and F/OSS software, and I am happy to pay for quality products when they satisfy a need, especially from small or independent developers.

It is the imagined promise that Free Software is done for our benefit that lends us the delusion that things should be the way we want them.

In fact, Free Software things are much more likely to actually work, in the way that somebody wants, than Apple's or MS's. Just, not you. In the case of Apple and MS, there is typically no living individual who wants it to do what it does, but changing it would require initiative whose attempt at exercise would severely punished.

Apple used to charge for all their software. I give FOSS credit for changing that. I think Lion was the first free OS upgrade. I credit FOSS for Microsoft giving a real copy of Visual Studio away for free. They've done it in the past, IIRC, but it was so hobbled, it was useless.

I have seen people turn down free software because they mistakenly believe an expensive program must be better. But that's not really the same, since that isn't a form of showing off.

I think if it wasn't for free software, many companies would lock up programming tools like the game consoles.

for example, python on mac is a dud. I believe 2.7 and I have heard grumblings about it going away. Apple wants you to buy your code, and if you want to write code, to use the languages they are in control of as a separate download.

I was talking from the POV of the developer.

In many cases, you get what you pay for. I've used many examples of open source software. There are times and places where it's the best thing. There are areas where there is too little incentive for commercial companies. There are also times when you want ultimate freedom to do what you want. There are also times when you want to pay for a level of polish and know things just work. There are also times when you want to be the one doing the polishing and get paid for your work.

> Meanwhile, it costs money over on Mac OS. It certainly does nothing to help the perception of the mac ecosystem as one that's overpriced.

I don't see the logic in having a price above free being "overpriced." Free as in beer is not a right, nor is it some sort of ultimate good. Sometimes, it's also a sign of a broken market.

> There's no such thing as free software.

That's a hyperbole.

He also says

> The question is, "Who pays the price?"

Not everything is done for gain. When someone gives you an apple you're probably not that concerned about how it came to be, to you that apple is free. But there's also that added advantage of software - you can copy and share it just like that with the whole world.

Of course you are right that we should rise to the challenge of shipping excellent free software, but experience tells me that it doesn't matter how good we get at this, we will still be undone by the transient nature of software stacks. Patches will be necessary unless people never upgrade, which of course they will because sooner or later they will desire new features or it's necessitated by security. At best we can asymptotically approach the amortized cost of having someone else manage your software for you, and even that is dreamland until free OSes finds a way to approach the UX provided by Apple/Microsoft/Google.

You're welcome to devote your life to proving me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

When the OS is free, the engineers I've talked to who have been tasked with using it to implement their product are generally less experienced (which is to say less expensive). And the entire impression I get is that there is some cost minimization going on. Some sort of psychological trick that if its an expensive OS you need some expert engineer to bend it to your will, but if its free and seems to be everywhere, well you can hire an intern to do all your integration, development, and testing.

Freedom has a price.