[danielweber]

> Whose fault exactly is it?

People who think that software should be free, as in beer.

Developers have to be paid. When people paid for software with dollars, this exchange was much more straightforward. But now people think that software should be free as in beer, which means it comes with ad software or "sponsored software" that in turns sells ads, or spies on everything you do, or something to pay the bills.

[TeMPOraL]

Well, I disagree. There's a ton of software that is being developed and distributed for free because the authors actually care about solving a problem. Not all software needs to be sold, not all developers do it for money. For many people money is the problem (you need to put time to get it which could be better used to build useful stuff), not the goal.

Some developers choose to sell their software, and they have their perfect right to do so. Hard work needs to be compensated, and if someone wants that compensation to be money, then so be it. Just label it in clear terms. Ad-software is not a legitimate earning method, it's robbery. What it tells is that you don't give a damn about neither problem you're pretending to try to solve (otherwise you wouldn't let your app to be polluted with worthless crap) nor your users, who will have to live with malware (which, on global scale, is a huge negative utility in terms of lost productivity and health lost to stress/anger).

(I skipped here over the big, expensive software - things like Photoshop, Matlab, etc. That they are result of hard work of people who need to get paid is obvious, and everybody knows that they should buy that software if they needed, and they will receive something valuable in exchange.)

[bediger4000]

Not all software needs to be sold,...

I'd go a bit farther: not all software can be sold. Making some extremely niche software fills that niche, but there may be a very small audience for, say, combinatory logic interpreters, or theorem provers. If we as a society demand that every piece of software be sold, and maybe the bulk of the members of the society have a weird idea that the price of something has to reflect the cost of that good plus profit, then a lot of software will never get written, and a lot of ideas won't get tried out, and a lot of niches will go unfilled.

[eevilspock]

I think you two might agree, but are talking past each other.

Of course TemMPOraL is right: There's nothing wrong with someone who truly wants to give away software for free. Saying that's wrong is saying that any act of generosity, kindness or charity is wrong.

But Daniel is not saying that free software is the problem, but that "People who think that software should be free" is the problem. When people expect software and web services to be free, producers who can't afford to give it away free are forced[1] to resort to other means. And when he says that for people paying "for software with dollars, this exchange was much more straightforward", he is echoing Maciej Cegłowski[2] of pinboard in his call: Don't Be a Free User[3].

The real problem is not free software, but software that dishonestly claims to be free. Ad supported software is not free[4]. Software that is monetized by pushing other software is not free. Software that sells your data is not free. Software that hooks people first and then pushes in-app purchases[5] is not free.

I'm actively working on how to get us out of this mess. If you're interested give me a holler.

-

[1] I'm being generous. I think anyone who is ethical and honest with themselves wouldn't allow themselves to be forced into doing anything dishonest. "You can't get permission for the wrong thing and don't need it for the right thing" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8877192)

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=idlewords

[3] https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237

[5] I call this the drug dealer business model. Microsoft perfected this in they way they got everyone hooked on DOS, then Windows and then Office, and then took it to a new level by giving away IE for "free".

[totony]

I don't think your argument is valid. If you market your software as free, then it should be. You can't just fill the computer of the person with trash without asking just because "but I have to be paid!!!!". Now, some of these softwares did ask for permissions, I am just responding to your comment.

If it's going to spy on you, it should tell you right up, not in small prints in the EULA.

Also, the assumption that developpers have to be paid is wrong, some people might do it for charity or for other non-profit reasons.

[forgottenpass]

Developers have to be paid. When people paid for software with dollars, this exchange was much more straightforward.

There are plenty of services I pay for that sell data about me and/or show me advertizements.

So this is an appealing story, but it only works until someone decides "I could get paid, AND sell the user to advertizes/data harvesters." It's always easy to make now-impossible scenarios into appealing hypotheticals, and I'm sure that market forces COULD mean that none of the software or services currently supported through advertizement and data harvesting invasive and advertizement wouldn't do so, but nobody can say for sure.

[Retra]

Exactly.

Hey look:  -> "App store... (3 new)"

Pretty sure I bought this laptop. ($2000) But there sits an advertisement, right in my GUI. Yes, this one is pretty harmless, but it is still there.