Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century... the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.” - Captain Picard, Star Trek
I've been wondering about this for a while now, especially whether one day we could consistently rely on software developed by Open-source initiatives to fill our needs instead of for-profit software. Even if this is possible, would there be an appropriate system of accountability in the case of software failure in important situations, or would we even need one?
But perhaps moving towards a more Open-source world where (most) people are driven by the desire of developing tools for everyone's disposal, rather than one that has monetary profit as its first priority, would only be one of those ideas that only look good in theory?
Hopefully we'll get some constructive insights going. To me the open-source model (applied not just to software, but to anything that it can be applied to) seems like it would spread the *win-win* attitude (as opposed to the current economic model of trying to own and possess knowledge at all costs), but there are obviously things to watch out for.
Let's say, even if there is no answer to this, or if it's impossible to really be able to tell beforehand whether it's a good idea to slowly eclipse the for-profit model, would the purely-collaborative model be an endeavor worth adopting as the de-facto standard on a massive scale? (discussion can be software-specific, or can encompass topics beyond that)
Even if people aren't selling the software because it's Open Source there is money changing hands. Be it for someone to install the software, someone to fix problems caused by software that is still being developed, (open source is a perpetual work in progress by nature) advertisement revenue. It could also simply be a programmer putting the fact that he worked on this or that project on the ole resume.
Money isn't going anywhere any time soon, and if you dig deep enough you always find it changing hands. A more realistic goal at this point is the "freemium" model. Many MMO's are going to this model, where it's free to play, and perks are offered for paying customers. How significant the perks are is up to the developers.
For instance in DC Universe free play comes with a login que. Paid subscription removes that que, and adds some other classes and abilities. In contrast World of Tanks offers tanks and ammunition and several other perks that allow you to progress through their "leveling" system faster. The hardware and items that you pay for are SEVERELY overpowered in comparison to what a free player gets. I tried it, but when they put your silly little light tank against medium tanks that you literally cannot shoot through the armor of, one tends to quit playing. I also played DC Universe at a friends house, and didn't feel that I was severely handicapped by not paying for the extra features. The que to log in was sort of annoying but you get what you pay for.
Microsoft has also jumped on the "freemium" bandwagon with the latest version of office. You can use it for as long as you like, you get advertisements in a sidebar, and if memory serves there are some features not included until you pay for it, but again I never felt as though I was severely handicapped by the lack of purchase.
Try to convince enterprise level IT execs of open source software and the first words out of their mouths is "support", not a blog to post a problem on and wait on the community for a response.
Open source software will always be with us but become the standard model? No
As far as "people are driven by the desire of developing tools for everyone's disposal" sounds all well and good until one wants to establish a family and $1.25 contributions from users, well, I wouldn't want to plan my families welfare on that.
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,921 posts, read 13,853,608 times
Reputation: 5229
Quote:
Originally Posted by aspiring_natural
“The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century... the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.” - Captain Picard, Star Trek
The *problem*, with that statement, however aspiring it sounds, is that it never tells you how they got there !
For a long time I was under the impression that, if an item gets developed more and more, it also becomes cheaper. Like the ball-point pen for instance.
Now look at a TV. It did go down for awhile, then it leveled out and the technology changed. Can we at least say, *it got better and better* ?
Now ask if the prices went down. As far as I know, not at all. The best regular umpteen hundred pounds TV, I ever bought was slightly under $500.- . Geesj, you can not even get a low end good one for that kind of money today.
So, not even taking the number 24 into account, I have no idea how we (mankind) will ever get to that point !
In the end, I will take the statement of Captain Picard, with a bag of salt. A grain does not suffice, but then the English always had some dark sense of humour ???
The *problem*, with that statement, however aspiring it sounds, is that it never tells you how they got there !
For a long time I was under the impression that, if an item gets developed more and more, it also becomes cheaper. Like the ball-point pen for instance.
Now look at a TV. It did go down for awhile, then it leveled out and the technology changed. Can we at least say, *it got better and better* ?
Now ask if the prices went down. As far as I know, not at all. The best regular umpteen hundred pounds TV, I ever bought was slightly under $500.- . Geesj, you can not even get a low end good one for that kind of money today.
So, not even taking the number 24 into account, I have no idea how we (mankind) will ever get to that point !
In the end, I will take the statement of Captain Picard, with a bag of salt. A grain does not suffice, but then the English always had some dark sense of humour ???
The only way I could see for things to become free would be when EVERYTHING is automated and energy is free. Also it would require the people, who have built everything and sold those robots to do everything for free, to have made a serious error and not thought up clever ways to ensure that their piles of money don't become pointless.
An open-source world would be a utopian world. I see it as a state where we transcend the concept of monetary value (and, like you said, where human action is motivated by group welfare not profit). Hm...for that to happen we'd need to let natural selection weed out the greediest of us (perhaps via violent anarchism?) so the survivors are the most selfless of the species. Now if only that wasn't an oxymoron.
Try to convince enterprise level IT execs of open source software and the first words out of their mouths is "support", not a blog to post a problem on and wait on the community for a response.
That is problem with some projects and actually could create controversy within the group. You don't want to alienate your userbase by cutting off or curtailing free support but on the other hand you'll never move it into the mainstream without offering paid guaranteed support. I know MySQL operates like that and I believe PHP does too.
Now ask if the prices went down. As far as I know, not at all.
Certainly they have, large flat screen TV was like buying a car a few years ago. Going back even further I can recall my Grandfather buying a Quasar TV with this fancy new thing called infrared remote, think he paid $800 for the 32 inch model.
Also it would require the people, who have built everything and sold those robots to do everything for free,
I've posed this question before. In the age of robots how does a capitalistic society survive? They will slowly take over every task that man does, even people with skills like Doctors won't be needed at some point in time. Robots making robots, robots fixing robots etc.
Workers have no revenue and that leaves the companies making robots with no revenue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
