13 reasons why software is not free

Well I think the 13 reasons are a bit backwards. People certainly have the right to charge for software, but most small pieces of software should be free. Why?
1. The same stuff has been around since the 80s now. Every time there is a new platform, people want to charge *again* for it? It's like paying for the movie in BetaMax format, then again in VHS format, then again for DVD, and finally for BlueRay. The production only took place once! Since the source-code for many programs is closed, the work ends up wasted when the company eventually goes out of business, and people have to start over to duplicate it again.

When a product is a new idea, or a significant development, I can see it commanding a price premium for a while. Eventually though, it becomes a staple, and the development cost has been paid for. Think about it, you shouldn't have to pay for:
1. Calculator programs
2. FTP programs
3. Office Suites
etc.

Honestly, most of the programs on the app store could be created in a day or so by someone with any programming ability.

Obviously, there are exceptions, and apps that are indeed worth paying for. Those ones are usually expensive. Ironically, I find that most of the $1.00 - $5.00 apps are things that *should* just be free. Most of the apps that are $20 or $40 are so expensive for good reason (i.e. they include 1GB of expensive map data, etc.).

Stupid, stupid article.

The App store has demo versions of all kinds of software - they typically have names like "SuperWriter FREE" or "BogoSync LITE" and they generally have annoying limitations designed to encourage you to buy the full (i.e. paid) version. For some other apps, the "free" version has advertising - ugh!

I hate to admit it, but I will, since you seem to be unaware of this phenomenon: lots of people hate advertising, and will pay to get rid of it. (However, they also hate it when you add advertising to an app which previously didn't have it, and call it a "bug fix" upgrade. Worst of all is if they've already paid for the app.)

Moreover, it's easy to make a demo version of your Mac app as well, and you are in no way limited to the Mac App store - you can just make it available through your web site!

The fact of the matter is: there's a lot of good cheap and free software. If customers aren't willing to pay for your software, it means that they either a) don't have the money or b) would rather save it or spend it on something else.

Fortunately many of your potential customers - Mac and iOS users - are used to paying a premium price for something that is beautiful and functional. These are people who appreciate value over something that is cheap or free but requires you to waste lots of time messing with it (think commodity PCs running Windows or Linux.)

The access of the internet has cheapened almost everything. For some things software can be free or cheap, however in the long run we need to consider that quality pays. Pony up and get on with it.

everything should be free. including music like mine. download it for free if you like it. its at http://www.chazz26.com/Falls_End/Music.html

You can add "English teachers" to the list of people who expect to be paid for their work. You wouldn't believe the sheer number of people who expect me to teach them English for free on Skype or when I'm out in public. I really don't give a rat's arse about being your friend if you expect to get free English lessons!

As for me paying for software, I usually look to see if they have a lite/demo version first before I decide to buy it. I've bought a lot of games for my iPhone at the $5 - $10 range just because I liked the lite version well enough. As for things that cost more, it depends on what the product is. I'm perfectly happy using OpenOffice over Pages/Numbers, and I'm certain I'll buy Aperture over the new iPhoto just because I want something more to edit my photos.

When I get new software I look to see if it fits my needs, has quality, and how often would I use it. If it's free, and just crap, thanks but no thanks. If I don't use the app often enough then I probably would get a cheaper version.

Free markets change. It's why free markets work. How many developers made any money selling to the palm OS vs. iOS. Yeah, I thought so.

The app store is a beautiful creation of capitalism. If it's such a raw deal for developers, then why are they there. It's not the only game in town.

Blog posts like this are insulting and aggravating.

I'm happy to pay the right price for software that does a good job. But if the price isn't right, my hands stay in my pockets. Couple of cases in point: GraphicConverter and Sound Studio. Both are now available through the App Store, but I've used both for the best part of a decade. The price of GC is great for the functionality it offers: I even willingly shell out again when, every few years, the developer rolls out a new major version. Sound Studio's different: I paid a fair price back when it was shareware, but then it got sold to a commercial developer who decided to charge three times that. So they got nothing from me until I managed to pick up a recent version as part of a bundle. I couldn't recommend anybody to buy at the App Store price. GC, on the other hand … go for it. So yes. Not free is fine. But get the price right.

Most people use very few full blown software applications, so this supposed "race to the bottom" is actually a fair thing when it comes to software prices. I use Adobe's Creative Suite and Office. Besides that, the applications on my computer have become something akin to widgets. I want to do little bits of something here and there.

The saviours of my day aren't full blown applications where the developer put in every bell and whistle; they are the little apps that look beautiful and provide one function amazingly well. I have a program called "Art Files" that I can drop an Illustrator file onto and it collects all the assets into folders and allows me to write a note to the printer, for instance. I know the program "Burn" got a lot of flack for being simplistic, but when I wanted to burn some files to a CD (a very long time ago, mind you) this was the one that I enjoyed using. It gave me just as much function as I wanted. I've played with larger task managers like OmniFocus, but I always go back to "Things" because they've shown restraint (though I'd love air syncing).

I love applications where the developer has shown understanding that I don't want to live in their program all day and charges me for the little help they provide.

Well there are already non-game iOS apps that use in-app perches to add functionality. There is a network diagnostic/management tool I have that is free, has limited functionality. Then I can add features like WOL for $1.99. Also, there is no reason these apps can't have the paid version in the store, and a demo at the website. As long as the info you provide to the app store with the paid version is accurate any fool can click on the link to the developers site.

On the other hand, I don't believe software dev should be about gaining notoriety.The point is to provide a useful product that solvs a common problem. I HATE software that is just some iteration of what might have been a useful tool, IF the dev had been more focused on making a good app, with good features, and maintaining the app, not just abandoning it on the app store after the first approval. It just makes for another app i'll delete within seconds and that is more a reason that a dev will just gain negative notoriety in my book.

On my Palm T3 I hated that there was no easy to use common place to get software, there were few if any demos, or betas, or anything, so it's not exactly comparable anyway. You had to just pay the $20 dollars at some site, where their may not even be any screenshots, or reviews. I'm like one of 10 people in the nation who even know the app exists anyway.

Development in reality, not the dev dream world, is about the end user, not the Dev. Just like a McDouble is about the eater, and nobody gives a hoot about the guy who made it. I mean, I know that there are devs who believe they are the end-all-be-all of computing; but that's really kind of unrealistic. The end user is the end-all-be-all of development, and sometimes apps just suck hose water not matter how much time and effort they put into it.

And a note to the open source lackeys, average end-users don't give a flying flame about being able to mod the software, they value being able to get it from a reliable source with all their other software more. I don't need some nerd lawyer telling me I can't have a program because the app store isn't good enough. That isn't me getting to use the software the way I want, that is the dev telling me how I can use the software. And the whole point of open source was to keep the dev from having that power.

I don't mind paying for apps, in fact I prefer it, but I do resent paying so that developers will actually finish the apps they release as "free" or as "ad-supported (eg. "as-mob, etc). Current commercial policies blur the distinction between "free" and "community supported".

What i most resent is how "free" now seems to mean "pay us (or click on the ads) to fix our intentionally released inferior code". I have a personal policy to be especially vocal professionally about these, often financing team efforts to write internal apps to instead of paying this "blackmail".