Is Software That Costs $$ More Alluring Than Free Software?

[rob86 2]

Imagine this scenario.1. One software or product (an e-book, or something) is freely available for download. 2. Another very similar product is said to cost some arbitrary price BUT the creator sneakily makes it freely available through other means. For example, an easy to crack javascript password or uploading it on a torrent site. The author #2 realizes he can't compete with a free software that's just as good by putting a price on the product, but having a product that people use is better than being obscure and unknown. To compete with product 1, he makes his product look better by significant price on it knowing that most people won't pay.Do you think that putting a price on something makes it a more attractive product, or will people still be drawn to the free open source community because of what it stands for, and that it's not as immoral as stealing/pirating.

[Nameless_ 1]

I don't know, it depends. If it was me though, I'd just go for the free product and ignore the one that you would have to pay for. But in illogical terms, most person associate money with high quality and or class or something like that. So while it may not be true, people will think that the product that you have to pay for is better than the one that is free... So if people are dissatisfied with the free product, or want something more from it, they may look to the product that requires to be paid, and they will subconsciously associate it with being better and more functional and more reliable.So it depends. Of course, the amount of people willing to pay isn't a lot, and like me, while I use the free program MAMP (a local webserver only for Mac computers), I have absolutely no interest in buying the webserver program MAMP pro, and I haven't seen anyone use that yet before. But having a free product makes your product highly popular, unless it is something that you just have to have and there is no alternate that is freely for availability, say, for example, Photoshop.So, in short, in my opinion, yes, pricing a product will certainly make it much much more attractive to the free alternative. But however, it will turn off people looking for free products and softwares and people that do not have a lot of spare money and cash on them. While it may make the product attractive, it will not be able to compete with their open source and free counterparts... :PJust my two cents worth.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

I don't really consider the prices when it comes to things. If I need it I get it via whatever means necessary. I'm not wasteful so I don't run into "I'd like this but I don't need it..."I don't think prices are what determine whether or not people will get most things, it's based on what is "socially acceptable." For example, although most people could get along with Linux fine for their uses, many people would still choose Windows solely because it's what they are used to and it's what's always advertised (I've never even seen a Linux commercial).Or take OpenOffice. Although it has MORE FEATURES than Microsoft Office, and it's FREE, people would generally rather use Microsoft's anyways because it's what most people use.This could also be related to the fact that if most people use something, that means it's easier to find help when you run into issues. If you walked into a computer shop where everyone uses Windows and you need help with Linux, your chances of getting help are much slimmer.So, I know I went a little off-topic there based on your scenario, but I believe these are very very similar, if not the same. It's not about the price, it's about what is "socially acceptable."

[k_nitin_r 8]

Hi!When you've got free software and commercial software, the general idea is that commercial software is better in most cases. However, when you see widely used free software, you would prefer it over a commercial alternative.I agree with RpgSearcher's point about OpenOffice and Microsoft Office there but that's more of a standard issue. Microsoft Office can open documents created in its own format and can correctly display it. However, OpenOffice can open Microsoft Office documents, but that doesn't mean that it is very good at displaying them. Sometimes, the fonts and colors of the document are off from the original. At other times, we have items positioned incorrectly. In either case, when something does not work out of the box, you would switch over to an alternative product, be it commercial or free.

[Spyda 0]

Of course the product that actually costs money is more alluring. This concept applies to other things as well. Which one would sound better to you? Two houses exactly the same, yet one costs 1,000,000 and the other is free. You'd automatically say "The one that is 1,000,000 is better." One thing is people just think that things you pay for are better. Ever go to a fancy restaurant? I've ordered expensive meals that I SWEAR could make the same at home, yet my friends would prefer the dish from fancy restaurant. Money just makes things look better.. it's just how things are

[mahesh2k 0]

Free software concept looks good. And it works as well. But at the end of the day people who keep things free for other,must earn their bread. People dont suppor free software as they're supposed to. They refrain from paying donation cause they think someone else will pay. If we want free software to survive then they need to support it financially.This will improve the quality of software,as people who manage project will get benefit to keep it alive.

[Www.AnthonyLazaroni.Com 0]

I only buy software from companies i trust, most places that are throw-away webpages, ill walk away from. If i go to another site with the same program and different design, im so gone.

[Okara KAmi 0]

If I walked up to you and told you, Hey which car seat would you buy for your baby if you had a trillion dollars? That one that costs $50? Or this one, that's for free? Now without much thought, and under the assumption that you aren't clinically insane, we can safely say that you would chose the more expensive one. Why? Well because we naturally associate price with quality, without much thought and insight on what the product really is, and why the prices of two different products are different.In a capitalist market, that which has prettier clothes is assumed to be the better prostitute. That, of course, helps to explain why Gimp is so much less popular than Photoshop. This is why we think $60 shoes are cooler than $7 ones. We are born and brought up in a society where nothing is free, and there is no such thing as bargaining. I think that's the key. Because most of the first world is unable to directly bargain with a vendor, we can't understand how low the price of something can drop with just the right amount of persuasion. Back in India, when someone would sell us a clock for Rs. 300, we could talk them into dropping it almost half way down. The true value of products often surfaces when you are able to push prices lower, farther away from commercial standards and closer to the true worth of what is being sold. Here in America, or wherever it is that we're referring to, that choice may not be present to such an extent. And due to the otherwise dominant presence of a capitalist mind set, we judge and grade products more by their cost, and less by their performance. This, of course, applies mostly to software. We see an ad that says something is free, we have two alerts go off in our head. The first is that this is a hoax, and that nothing can truly be given away for free. The second is that this product is probably petty, not worth the effort, if it is being given away for no cost.