[slackline]

With all of the major software packages that I use, you have to pay for them and if you want support, you have to pay more.

This is a model that works very well in the corporate environment.

I'm sure it does! 

Must be a pain in the arse having to pay through the nose whenever you want support though particularly if its down to say a bug/error in the software itself.  You are in effect paying them for privilege discovering problems in their software which they should be working hard to discover themselves, or at best at least thanking you for having discovered it so that the next revision can be improved!

One of the statistics packages I use (Stata) is proprietary, but support is provided through a community of users via a mailing list on which staff, right up to the vice-president who originally wrote the software many years ago, are active (they also write really good free blog articles).  There a wealth of user-developed add-ons/routines and when there really is a technical problem/bug support is free (response times are very quick and when I've had recourse to use them they've been able to resolve problems straight-away).

Each major release usually sees a free update within a month or so to iron out any bugs and there are usually a few more updates beyond that between major releases, mostly addressing minor problems/issues, but there are usually a few new features in there that are precursors to the new release.

Best of all its far cheaper than the other major proprietary vendors of statistical software (SPSS and SAS), although not as cheap as the other statistics package I use which is R and is totally free and has a HUGE user base along with all the above benefits such as blogs, mailing lists and thousands of user developed packages.  Theres even the off-shoot project Bioconductor which tweaks the base R distribution for bioinformatics.

Then theres all sorts of similar support for LaTeX, Python, PostgreSQL/MySQL etc. etc. etc. 

[tomtom]

@tomtom : so having your software open source hasn't resulted in tons of others offering assistance, but if it had been closed source what difference would there be?

It would still have been you doing the development anyway so what, if any, has been the disadvantages of sharing your source code?

tomtom responded on twitter with...

cons are made no £ from it. Pro's are not having liability or to provide support..

So I'm wondering how much time was freely spent responding to queries from the c.200 people who have used the software and whether charging for this time spent might have resulted in an equivalent revenue had the software been closed source and license charged?

I guess only tomtom is going to be able to answer the above, come on Tom, how much time have you spent helping users for free?

I'm also curious why the lack of remuneration for obtaining software is seen as a disadvantage (perhaps also by other software authors who've posted in this thread) whilst not being obliged to provide support is an advantage?  If you don't support your product then people aren't going to use it (or they'll have a hard time doing so, and feel aggrieved having spent money on something they can't use). 

The liability issue is irrelevant to whether a piece of software is open or closed source as disclaimers to absolve authors of software of liability can be applied to either.

Busy at the moment (work etc..) but interested - might be worth spawning a "open source debate" or other named thread?

[slackline]

Busy at the moment (work etc..) but interested - might be worth spawning a "open source debate" or other named thread?

Could do, I see the patenting of software the same as copyrighting it though and both are at logger heads with the open source philosophy.  Happy to fork though.

[Stu Littlefair]

Happy to fork though.

And there, in a sentence, is my biggest problem with open source software ;-)

[mr__j5]

With all of the major software packages that I use, you have to pay for them and if you want support, you have to pay more.

This is a model that works very well in the corporate environment.

I'm sure it does! 

Must be a pain in the arse having to pay through the nose whenever you want support though particularly if its down to say a bug/error in the software itself.  You are in effect paying them for privilege discovering problems in their software which they should be working hard to discover themselves, or at best at least thanking you for having discovered it so that the next revision can be improved!

One of the statistics packages I use (Stata) is proprietary, but support is provided through a community of users via a mailing list on which staff, right up to the vice-president who originally wrote the software many years ago, are active (they also write really good free blog articles).  There a wealth of user-developed add-ons/routines and when there really is a technical problem/bug support is free (response times are very quick and when I've had recourse to use them they've been able to resolve problems straight-away).

Each major release usually sees a free update within a month or so to iron out any bugs and there are usually a few more updates beyond that between major releases, mostly addressing minor problems/issues, but there are usually a few new features in there that are precursors to the new release.

Best of all its far cheaper than the other major proprietary vendors of statistical software (SPSS and SAS), although not as cheap as the other statistics package I use which is R and is totally free and has a HUGE user base along with all the above benefits such as blogs, mailing lists and thousands of user developed packages.  Theres even the off-shoot project Bioconductor which tweaks the base R distribution for bioinformatics.

Then theres all sorts of similar support for LaTeX, Python, PostgreSQL/MySQL etc. etc. etc. 

Sorry, but I don't see how any of that relates to your previous statement that you should give away the software and charge for the support.

Here you are marvelling at the fact that support is quick and free. Aren't you ?

Many of these arguements are very dependent on the size of the user base and the income to the developement team (by which ever means you can get to work). For massive software projects, like Windows say, if you provide free and open support to users then actually what happens is that you get swamped with rubbish from idiots, rather than actual bug reports/support issues and you just can't process it.

[slackline]

Happy to fork though.

And there, in a sentence, is my biggest problem with open source software ;-)

 

I think thats a good thing though.  People have different ideas about what should or shouldn't be included.  This results in a diverse "ecosystem" of software and promotes (generally friendly) competition/rivalry.  A form of "natural selection" then reigns and those forks which have been taken in the most beneficial directions "survive".

The alternative, generally you're stuck with one or two dominant companies "vision" (M$/APple or Adobe with Photoshop/err whatelse?).  So generally it stifles creativity and diversity which are a good things (as far as I can see).

Take the plethora of window managers(WMs)/desktop environments (DEs) under Linux....GNOME, KDE, Xfce4, IceWM, fluxbox, openbox, LXDE etc.

Some are more full featured than others (GNOME/KDE/Xfce4) and require larger amounts of RAM to run, others are more lightweight but still have lots of features (LXDE), whilst others are even more basic (e.g. don't have desktop icons or at least require additional small programs to provide them such as fluxbox, openbox).  But people don't all have the latest greatest powerful computers, I've an old (circa 9 years now) laptop that runs fluxbox fine, but couldn't handle the now relatively bloated/resource intensive full featured, but that doesn't matter because I can choose which to use and one that will work with the hardware that I have.

One doesn't have to immerse themselves in the plethora of choices and get worried over the petty flaming wars that go on between forks (most of which are just that, and highly technical anyway).  Choose what works for your requirements and go with it.

[stevej]

and after all of these if-it's-not-free-it's-evil red herrings, we get closer to the original topic with recent and concerning news that FBI are caught wandering around with over 12 million iOS device unique identifiers with associated user names, phone numbers, post-codes etc... Naturally neither they nor apple are forthcoming with why or how they have this data. Mix it up with apple tracking users locations against user ID whether or not gps/location functions were turned on or not and boom, company of concerning morals.

Not giving away things you've worked hard to create doesn't make you evil. Whether you like it or not, intelectual property is a fundamental part of the technology-driven part of market we live in at least. There are countless industries where innovation has to be fought for, lots of SCIENCE done to figure out why something does something, and how to make it better BUT, the final product is easy to copy. The easy example of this is pharma but there are other industries who basically buy up off-the-shelf chemicals/materials, mix them together according to their sometimes secret, sometimes not secret recipe, obtained through significant inginueity and reserach, and sell them on. The primary value of a lot of companies isn't the secrecy of the recipes but the patents protecting them. As I think tomtom mentioned before, there are algorithm/coding-based things worthy of protection too but I'm not too well-up on that stuff.

This isn't about whether or not patent law should be entirely scrapped but how the patent offices are shirking their responsibilities by delegating the question of ligitimacy to the courts. The patent system was designed to give protection and reward to inventors and scientists who increase the knowledge in the world, not to be yet another tradable commodity for the benefit of the biggest companies.

Anyway, enough about patents. Apple are rotten. Irreplacable batteries/iTunes/round corner bullying/rxploting their users for more and more money/mystery databases of everyone are evidence enough of that.

But, the real reason non-apple users hate apple is how smug apple users are despite paying huge amounts of money on something shit. It's infuriating. You see that smugness at their new shiny iFondlepad 62-batmansymbol and you can see you might as well be discussing patent law with a cat.

[SA Chris]

But, the real reason non-apple users hate apple is how smug apple users are despite paying huge amounts of money on something shit. It's infuriating. You see that smugness at their new shiny iFondlepad 62-batmansymbol and you can see you might as well be discussing patent law with a cat.

Beautiful. In fact the whole post deserves a wad point.

[tomtom]

Bemusing to me... all of the below is kind of right - though it transpired google did/do the whole tracking shit too..

and after all of these if-it's-not-free-it's-evil red herrings, we get closer to the original topic with recent and concerning news that FBI are caught wandering around with over 12 million iOS device unique identifiers with associated user names, phone numbers, post-codes etc... Naturally neither they nor apple are forthcoming with why or how they have this data. Mix it up with apple tracking users locations against user ID whether or not gps/location functions were turned on or not and boom, company of concerning morals.

Not giving away things you've worked hard to create doesn't make you evil. Whether you like it or not, intelectual property is a fundamental part of the technology-driven part of market we live in at least. There are countless industries where innovation has to be fought for, lots of SCIENCE done to figure out why something does something, and how to make it better BUT, the final product is easy to copy. The easy example of this is pharma but there are other industries who basically buy up off-the-shelf chemicals/materials, mix them together according to their sometimes secret, sometimes not secret recipe, obtained through significant inginueity and reserach, and sell them on. The primary value of a lot of companies isn't the secrecy of the recipes but the patents protecting them. As I think tomtom mentioned before, there are algorithm/coding-based things worthy of protection too but I'm not too well-up on that stuff.

This isn't about whether or not patent law should be entirely scrapped but how the patent offices are shirking their responsibilities by delegating the question of ligitimacy to the courts. The patent system was designed to give protection and reward to inventors and scientists who increase the knowledge in the world, not to be yet another tradable commodity for the benefit of the biggest companies.

Yes - all makes sense to me...

But this is a bit weird.... (I didnt see a smiley so assume you mean it..)

But, the real reason non-apple users hate apple is how smug apple users are despite paying huge amounts of money on something shit. It's infuriating. You see that smugness at their new shiny iFondlepad 62-batmansymbol and you can see you might as well be discussing patent law with a cat.

its only a phone/computer etc......


I'll start a new thread for the open source things... this is (as you said) about the patents etc...

[Jaspersharpe]

its only a phone/computer etc......

Tell that to these guys:



Come on tomtom, "bemused"?! Like the whole cult of Apple thing has completely passed you by.........  #jimmyhill

[tomtom]

Come on tomtom, "bemused"?! Like the whole cult of Apple thing has completely passed you by.........  #jimmyhill

This is scary!



OK - I can see how people like they're new shiny gadget and effuse about it, and I can also see how people can get pissed off about it. As in I can see how people get pissed off with people going on about how good/flash/whatever their new toy is blah blah.. 

But it seems nuts to me that people hate a brand... If you dont like it, dont buy it.. Apple have been clever by building such a strong brand - and the media have loved the whole Jobs is god routine.. But thats all it is a brand. and they are just a tech company..

To me, being a hater of Apple seems just as nuts as being one of those folk hugging each other and spunking in their pants at being first getting the latest iThing you showed in the picture... still each to their own I guess...

There are folk who buy stuff because its part of the fad, looks good - want to buy into the brand. Personally I think thats a bit nuts too.. but hey ho, nowt so queer as folk..

I've just written, re-written and deleted loads of stuff - just kept going round in circles.. I've an iFern.. its good. I might get something different next time.. but it wont be because of any cult of Apple (or NOT being cult of Apple) - it'll be because I like it, or its yellow, or rolls fags for me, or does something stupid that catches my fancy

Edit: its mostly banter (the whole apple non apple, ifern, android shizzle) but what really bemuses/scares/worries me is that some people seem to take it really really seriously! (not saying thats you stevej btw..)

[Jaspersharpe]

This guy really hates Apple! 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/12/iphone_five_reasons/

[slackline]

This guy really hates Apple! 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/12/iphone_five_reasons/

Someone on another fourm wrote...

With it having a larger screen I expect Samsung to sue, blatant copying.

Perhaps more importantly....got to maximise the profit margin on the production lines.

I suspect other companies aren't much better.

[tomtom]

Underwhelmed by the iFern5...

Nice hardware.. looks really good and well made.. but ~ so what....

[Jaspersharpe]

Is it right that the charger/any other sort of connector from older iPhones won't work on the 5?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443696604577647993201137890.html?mod=e2tw

If so this really is Apple taking the piss!

[namnok]

Is it right that the charger/any other sort of connector from older iPhones won't work on the 5?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443696604577647993201137890.html?mod=e2tw

If so this really is Apple taking the piss!

yep

[slackline]

Surely thats a bonus as everyone can buy a brand new set of over-priced docking speakers to go with their new phone.

[Jaspersharpe]

Amazing. As every other device is being made more compatible, Apple make different versions of their same device incompatible.

And they'll get away with it too! Patents and other such shit aside this is the definition of what I'd call "a cunt's trick".

[slackline]

 

[tomtom]

My Applephile colleague was saying this was because the old connector was too thick to fit in the new slim frame of the phone. I'm not so sure. TBH, its a reason to consider something different for me.. if I'm going to have to change chargers/speaker docks etc.. Might change the ecosystem (I know theres an adaptor but its huuuge)...

[slackline]

All other phones manufacturers have, I believe,  agreed on microUSB as the de facto connector.

[slackline]

Interesting for a company that supposedly leads the way on design and innovation....

Did you know that Apple spends far less on R&D than any of its rivals - a paltry 2% of revenues, versus 14% for Google and Microsoft?

None of these have small revenues, so despite Apple being "the biggest/most valuable company in the world" thats pretty poor.

[tomtom]

Interesting for a company that supposedly leads the way on design and innovation....

Did you know that Apple spends far less on R&D than any of its rivals - a paltry 2% of revenues, versus 14% for Google and Microsoft?

None of these have small revenues, so despite Apple being "the biggest/most valuable company in the world" thats pretty poor.

I don't get this - they're a business... So really this is very very good. Build a product that is a world leader for less? Ms and google are also software (mainly) not hardware developers so it's a bit of an funny comparison..

[slackline]

Interesting for a company that supposedly leads the way on design and innovation....

Did you know that Apple spends far less on R&D than any of its rivals - a paltry 2% of revenues, versus 14% for Google and Microsoft?

None of these have small revenues, so despite Apple being "the biggest/most valuable company in the world" thats pretty poor.

I don't get this - they're a business... So really this is very very good. Build a product that is a world leader for less? Ms and google are also software (mainly) not hardware developers so it's a bit of an funny comparison..

And yet Apple sue the arses off of anyone who attempts to employ the same strategy e.g. Sam****

They've not built a product that is world leader for less, the sales numbers speak for themselves!  Whilst they might have a higher profit margin that doesn't mean they've actually been innovative, they just buy up the companies that have come up with the true innovations and then aggressively protect 'patents' which quite frankly are outdated in their application to the current ecosystem of software/hardware design. 

As someone else wrote....

With it having a larger screen I expect Samsung to sue, blatant copying.

..pretty much epitomises the "its a roughly rectangular device with curved edges and a touch screen" approach apple have taken with regards to say the Samsung Galaxy tabs, so why the hell shouldn't Samsung counter-sue (if thats to be the accepted culture) apple for "increasing the interface real-estate".  Both as non-nonsensical as each other. 

[tommytwotone]

This!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/17/apple_iphone_5_shortage/