Other people have answered the question more generally, but I wanted to make one particular note.
Why doesn't water have high profit margins?
Because competition drives down prices, and the developed world has done a lot to encourage such competition.
For software to be abundant-like-water, it would have to be much easier to make a competing software product. Not a copy of the product--an alternative. If the developer decided not to sell, how hard would it be to replace it?
This is why the phrase "open-source software" is generally preceded with "free."
Why don't more people use OSS is a question I always have.
I think as a programmer, I overestimate how easy it is for most people to find and configure the OSS that solves their problem.
The best OSS solutions also often lag behind the best paid solutions, so OSS applications often lose large chunks of value relative to paid solutions once you scale them, thus meriting paying more money for more cutting edge systems.
So we end up with-
People that don't need to scale don't use OSS because they don't have the scale to overcome the barriers to entry such as finding what they need and setting it up.
Orgs that do need to scale use OSS... indirectly, in their software's dependencies lists, but still have people they're paying to keep their systems cutting edge and finetuned to their specific needs.
I think the fundamental reason is that OSS software alternatives to existing consumer products largely suck.
OSS is at it's strongest when it serves developer needs. That's because the creators and the target market are highly aligned. However, this is not the same for consumer products, where that instinctual alignment doesn't exist, and has to be forced in. UI/UX is painful work, and while there's a strong monetary incentive for profit-seeking entities to do so, the same doesn't apply to developers, who often loathe such work.
There are a few star examples, but they're the exception to the rule.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Other people have answered the question more generally, but I wanted to make one particular note.
Because competition drives down prices, and the developed world has done a lot to encourage such competition.
For software to be abundant-like-water, it would have to be much easier to make a competing software product. Not a copy of the product--an alternative. If the developer decided not to sell, how hard would it be to replace it?
This is why the phrase "open-source software" is generally preceded with "free."
Why don't more people use OSS is a question I always have.
I think as a programmer, I overestimate how easy it is for most people to find and configure the OSS that solves their problem.
The best OSS solutions also often lag behind the best paid solutions, so OSS applications often lose large chunks of value relative to paid solutions once you scale them, thus meriting paying more money for more cutting edge systems.
So we end up with-
People that don't need to scale don't use OSS because they don't have the scale to overcome the barriers to entry such as finding what they need and setting it up.
Orgs that do need to scale use OSS... indirectly, in their software's dependencies lists, but still have people they're paying to keep their systems cutting edge and finetuned to their specific needs.
I think the fundamental reason is that OSS software alternatives to existing consumer products largely suck.
OSS is at it's strongest when it serves developer needs. That's because the creators and the target market are highly aligned. However, this is not the same for consumer products, where that instinctual alignment doesn't exist, and has to be forced in. UI/UX is painful work, and while there's a strong monetary incentive for profit-seeking entities to do so, the same doesn't apply to developers, who often loathe such work.
There are a few star examples, but they're the exception to the rule.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link