More about evil old Capitalism

Personal computing and capitalism

from JoeUser Forums

In my last article, I talked about how there is a sub-set of people on-line who have a real problem with the concept of capitalism. That is, people intentionally making products and services that are designed to make money for the creator of those products or services.

But while capitalism may be tolerated by those people, some are pushed over the edge over the concept of charging money for intellectual property (such as software).  While one can understand having to pay for food or cars or other tangible things, the idea of having to pay for something that has no physical form and hence no production cost is anathema to some.

The result is that a small but vocal minority of people will go out and harass those who create commercial software. 

The example I gave was a the announcement of a  program called Multiplicity. It enables users to take multiple computers, each with its own monitor(s) and combine them together into a single unit that is controlled by a single keyboard and mouse.  At first, we saw people come on and insist it was no different than some freeware program that's available. And indeed, on paper there are freeware programs that are similar to Multiplicity. But in a similar vein, there are similar programs, on paper, to WindowBlinds such as CustomEyes.  Such freeware, open source programs tend to be more technology demo than something you would use.

The response I got from people in that thread was very interesting.  I wasn't aware that there were people who were really and truly insistent that commercial software and freeware/open source are generally equivalent in quality even though any reasonably experience software user knows that isn't the case.

Commercial software is almost always better than freeware.  Not because commercial developers are better programmers but because the commercial developer has a stronger incentive to keep enhancing, fixing, tweaking, polishing the program than the freeware developer.  The typical freeware developer is making something largely for themselves that they later decide to share with others. By contrast, the commercial software developer is making something they hope others will pay for. Big difference.

There are countless examples of freeware that is better than commercial offerings (Look how good Firefox is). But that's not the norm.

Personally, I use freeware when I can because I'm cheap. But if it's something that matters, I'm going to go with whatever the best and that normally means having to pay for it.

But getting back to the hatred of capitalism, once the argument over freeware vs. commercial in terms of software quality was simmering I also received private messages from ant-capitalists that essentially said "Look, you've already got Stardock and WinCustomize to post your spam on, why do you have to post your spam on Neowin's software news?"  Which was an intriguing unintentional admission. 

The Neowin.net software news section is designed for announcements of software news (I should know, I'm a news moderator there).  It doesn't discriminate on the type of software. It can be free. It can be commercial. It doesn't matter. But it was very telling that multiple people objected to the announcement of commercial software.  If Multiplicity was a freeware program, no doubt they'd been fine. Their hope, from experience, is to try to harass/shame commercial developers to go away. 

Of course, this is nothing new. I've been dealing with this phenomenon for years. During the dot-com extremes and the height of the open source hype such people were much more numerous and more vocal as we got regular demands for us to make our software open source.

But at the end of the day, software that is complicated and hard to develop, particularly if the quality of the software has to do with the execution of it, needs to be developed by people who are paid to do it. And that money has to come from somewhere. WindowBlinds dominates the GUI skinning world because it has been continuously developed for 8 years now. If it were freeware, it would have died off long ago, I can assure you of that. 

That is why capitalism is a force for good -- it provides an incentive for people to do things they would rather not do in order to make the product or service better. And that improvement benefits the user and provides resources to do other things that benefit users (such as pay for a skin site).

industry
21,902 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Brad, I do not dispute the fact that most software companies may theoretically want to get a better product in order to sell it. But, in reality, a lot of programs have bugs. Some have huge bugs. And commercial software are no exception. Actually, maybe specifically because commercial software companies sometimes try to make the software too big, with too many features, it just makes the thing too slow, or more apt to crash or I don't know why. But, as a user, the fact remains that if I find a freeware too buggy, I just shrug and I uninstall it. But if I just spent moeny for a software that keeps crashing, then I'm not a happy camper. And sometimes (and I'm NOT talking about Stardock here), customer service in those companies is almost inexistant. You bought it, it doesn't work. Oh well, money wasted and nothing to do about it.
Plus there is also the "value vs cost" aspect. And that aspect varies a lot from one person to another. For example, is Photoshop that much better from PaintShop Pro to be worth some $700 more? Or how much better is MS Office compared to Open Office to justify a $800 vs $0 price difference? We're not talking $20 here. A product better be darn good to justify that amount of money. Of course, for a business, sometimes the cost isn't all that important if it guarantees that the job gets done. But for an average Joe, Open Office is most likely good enough. Not as good for sure, but certainly more than good enough to write letters to uncle Joe and the shopping list.

So, in short, while commercial products are probably better most of the times (not always), the financial situation of different people and the real need they have sometimes doesn't justify the cost attached for the little extra you get from a commercial software.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not arguing that commercial software is perfect. Only that, on average, it is better than similarly featured free programs.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Capitalism is not only a force for good because it provides incentive. It also is a force for good because to date, it is the only way that civilized human beings can trade value for value. Without capitalism society degrades to those that have force of arms taking from those that do not, or mobs and gangs pillaging the few or individuals. Consider that all lasting relationships are built on capitalism. Even Love (yes it's Feb 14th) is based on fair trade, value for value. You love someone, not for pitty or altruism, but because they possess in themselves something that you admire, and hopefully something you respect. You trade on that quality and what the other sees and values in you. Instead of money, the currency is love.

And before you socialists comment this time... Soviet Russia is a perfect example of a society that tried to do without capitalism. The end result was a society where bread was all but unatainable to most of the population, where the standard of living was so poor for anyone other than the very few that ran the whole show that it was often worse than 3rd world nations. And make no mistake, even those that ran the whole show were vulnerable to the next person's whim. One wrong step, one slight and they were done for. (and don't go using examples of Russia today, because it's just another example of socialism trying to hide in capitalist clothing.)

Yes, you'll say, socialism isn't like that in Russia. Yes, you've hidden your agenda to get rid of fair commerce entered into willingly by both parties and degrade our society to trading on favours because every time socialism is tried, the end result is always the same: Abject poverty. So now you have the 3rd way, let capitialism rule, but steal money from those capitalists to feed and cloth those that do nothing with their lives. That choose to be losers not contributing to society through hard work and fair trade. Great system. Guit those that work hard into believing that they must give that hard earned money to those that didn't earn it, guilt them into altruism and make them pay the debit racked up by lazy people that choose not to earn their lives. EVERY case where socialism has been tried as failed. Every social program ever invented has in the long run failed. Why? Because as Brad says, there is no incentive, and there is no framework for two people to enter into a civilized relationship that can be productive. So over time, the lowest common denominator takes hold, and the cost of the project inflates slowly at first and then ever more quickly (Canadian Medicare anyone?) until it simply cannot be sustained any longer.

If religion used this system of guilt for success and obviscation of the truth through exceptions and subjectivism the way socialists wheld it, it would be very dangerous indeed... oh that's right... that's exactly what the religious right is doing! They stole it from the socialists! Damn them! No wonder they are so dangerous. Almost as dangerous as the concept of humans as ignorant creatures that can never know reality in its true nature...
Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top

My father never said much to me that made sense as I was growing up, except.....

"A young person who is not a socialist has no heart, but an old person who is not a capitalist has no brain."

Stands up to critical analysis, does that....

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Commercial software is almost always better than freeware."
Erm, only if you ignore the cost of buying the software, and since we are talking about capitalism here we have to consider the costs as well as the benefits of software.
The initial startup cost is quite a barrier, one might just not be able to afford to buy the commercial software, or the freeware software might be used initially since it's easily available and then becomes ingrained.


Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The justification for Capitalism is CHOICE. It presupposes the ability of human beings to make informed choice basesd on self interest. However, corporate domination of the Capilaist world undermnes this .
Reply #8 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I do support capitalism, but it IS possible for other extreme to happen, capitalism could go only for profits and damn the suffering people and keep cutting workers and benefits.

Best way is to have capitalism with little bit of socialism mixed in.
Reply #9 from WinCustomize Forums Top
On the left there is all capital owned and used by and for the people, on the right there is privately owned capital used to amass more privately owned capital. The former assumes all people share the same ideas on society, sharing and what not, the latter (correctly) assumes people are greedy and egoistical. Workers are usually more on the left, entrepreneurs on the right.

The righteous path lies somewhere in between.

Anyhow, I don't think the frogboy-getting-flack thing has anything to do with capitalism, share, free or payware, but more with a certain resentment of amphibians.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
XX,

I would love to experience a market like that where people were suffering and benefits kept getting cut. It would be very extremely easy to open a business and steal away all of the best labor by either better wages and working conditions.

People forget that markets compete for the best labor as well as compete to offer products at the best prices.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
craeonics,

Your definitions are somewhat scrambled. In capitalism, the capital is also owned by the people, individually. In socialism, it is owned by the state, and supposedly used for the benefit of the people. No one has been able to do this better than free markets do it. At least, not consistently. Free markets do not assume greed. Greed is a human emotion and market prices are a natural force like gravity. Greed is just one of the many reasons people work hard... Greed can also be manifested in ways that have nothing to do with economics.
Reply #12 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Market prices are as human as human emotions. We do not deal with aliens just yet and the whales won't buy from us no more since we started harpooning them. Economy is driven by human factors. The goal of capitalism is to use your capital to pursue more capital. I call that greed.

In socialism, the people are the state, so all capital is owned collectively.

Do not confuse theory (what I'm writing) and the absolutes at the ends of the spectrum with practice. There has never been a truly capitalistic state and there has never been a truly socialist state either.
Reply #13 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Yes, but with capitalism, you can choose to be as greedy as you want! Being self-motivated to succeed is a trait that only capitalism holds. All others motivate you to succeed based on what is good for others (or The Whole), which is not very motivating.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Draginol,

As always your blogs are insightful and good.  This one, like its predecessor, is also very accurate.  But I doubt you will convince any of the Freebees to switch, or any of the socialist that it is good.  Even Now, Bahu slaps the sysmte that gives him the freedom with a blanket "capitalist are evil", and with no supporting facts or even a basis in fact.

It is sad that on such an important topic as this, where I daresay everyone is reaping the benefit of capitalism, so few can  discuss it without calling it or the practioners evil.  I dare ssay that even the socialist wanna bees on this site are only moderately socialist and full fledge capitalist too.  I dont see any turning in their salary to the salvation army.  I dont think I ever will either.

Reply #16 from WinCustomize Forums Top
..show me a collectively owned car, and I'll show you a car who's tires need air, interior needs a vaccuming, and oil needs changing. Let me put this another way. Show me a Taxi company that buys it's own fleet and leases them out by the week, and another that hires owner/drivers who maintain their own vehicles. The private ownership route wins in all ways hands down. Ownership usually leads to caring about condition, quality and waste.

And I'll bet not one "socialist" on this thread would willingly offer to spend a year in North Korea. Any who volunteer for it, I will buy you a ticket. No joke. (And I'll even provide you your first weeks boxed lunches)...
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most good freeware programs have a dedicated development team and some source of revenue.

Many freeware programs are something that 1 or 2 people wrote in their free time and are fixed/updated when they feel like it. There's nothing wrong with that, but the software won't be as good as commercial quality.
Reply #18 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I completely agree that usually, comercial software are better, just like generally, expensive software are better than cheap ones. You get what you paid for, often. But my point is that sometimes is "better" realy better? I mean, how many people actually NEED MS Word. Of course it's better than other free alternatives. But quite often, the free alternative, while it doesn't have as many options, is really good enough.
Reply #19 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I agree about freeware. XXCalc is great, but I'm the only developer so it was slow progress for me to get it to be workable.
Reply #20 from WinCustomize Forums Top
It's getting tiresome. Use whatever you want. There's no reason to slam people for shelling out hard earned cash for commercial software. Neither is there a reason for slamming people who use free software. There's a good reason for using either.

Sooo... lets get stupid and mix capitalism and socialism with software development (totally braindead comparison).

Oh btw, I was born in a country that has social capitalism as its chosen mode of operation. Works just fine. Has advantages too... socialized medication (top notch, even), unemployment benefits, yada yada. The big drawback? If you're rich, you pay for the ones that are poor.

Compare this to socialism: In theory it could work I guess - IF people were motivated to work for works sake. Personally, I've yet to meet more than the occasional individual who does that. The majority of people on this planet are lazy slobs though.

Oh now lets have a look at pure capitalism: I guess in theory it could work too - except that countries that get close to that theory have a fascinating tendency to make rich people richer and poor people poorer. I suppose the poor deserve it though, after all money is value. Poor people are at best the dirt on the road.

I find it fascinating that people who live in certain countries believe socialism is inherently bad. On the other hand, people from certain other countries believe capitalism is bad.

Then again, I'm a cynic and as such not to be taken seriously.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe in a real market capitalism. One where buyers and sellers are both operating in their own self-interest. One where the sellers are the people who entire produce or import what they are selling.
That is the definition of capitalism in most economic texts dating back to Adam Smith.
But today we have a vastly different setup. The sellers are run by people who benefit only from the price of the shares today. And if closing a profitable business is better for the share price, then to hell with the workers who worked to produce profitable quality products and to those who invested in the shares hoping to get a better return than buying Government Bonds or annuities. They better jump ship and sell their shares quickly or they will end up with worthless shares. And the biggest money goes to those who know when to jump or the brokers, who leave their gullible clients and the pension funds still on board the sinking ship.

So let's try real capitalism. It works at every farmer's market, and shareware is real capitalism. Most commercial software is filled with so many problems, that a product recall is necessary. Just look at the daily updates from Micro-hard to fix problems that would get every car maker sued.
Reply #22 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Capitalism works best when there is lots of choices and competition. That way, greedy people inadvertently make society better. In order to compete, the product/service being produced must be made to be better than everyone else's. With everyone trying to get better to increase sales and enrich themselves, the overall products and services being made by the are constantly increasing in quality due to market pressures thereby helping out society as a whole. That's Capitalism 101, and that's why free trade (properly regulated to keep monopolies from forming) is the solution to poverty much of the world's economic ills