[carrotleads]

Suckers are the ones not selling it which would be majority of the programming populace..

I have seen top guys code up a entire solution at $X per hr. People who support that solution are able to charge 2X or 3X and who know only 1/10 of it... All cause they know how to speak the language or the sales guy who spoke the language sold it at that level.

People who have access to money are always paying for convenience.. programmers feel guilty charging for such stuff as we are aware of all the free options and generally do it for free.

[noonespecial]

People who have access to money are always paying for convenience..

I'd paint that in big block letters on the side of the time machine I'd send back to younger self if I could.

"Why would anyone pay $100's for that when you can just do it for free (with only 3 days of googling and configuring)?" They pay for the bit in parenthesis, and I failed to even consider it.

[dreamfactory2]

...and the higher powered they are, the more that time and context switching costs them

[alphapapa]

Right. But what gets me is, these big corps already have armies of employees who already get paid to do this stuff.

If I went to a millionaire's house and offered to mow his big lawn for $500, he might prefer to pay me that than mow it himself. But when he already has a gardener...?

Maybe I'm way off-base, but it seems messed-up to me.

[gregpilling]

There is a disconnect between <decisionmaker> and <programmer>. They may be separated by 2 layers vertically and 5 horizontally in the org chart. There is no situation that occurs where <programmer> is making appointments with <decisionmaker> and taking him out for drinks to find out what problems he has and what solutions would be valuable. (I used to sell $10-50K equipment; I used to joke that I got paid to visit people, and listen to their problems. A roving bartender)

Could you imagine that? BigCorp paying <programmer> to schmooze <decisionmaker> AND PAY FOR the meals, drinks, travel etc. Never going to happen.

So insert <salesperson> layer. Because <BigCorp> would never allow a setup like above, 2ndCorp gets into the action. BigCorp doesn't care how much 2ndCorp spends on <salesperson> because it doesn't cost them anything unless a purchase is made. 2ndCorp sends the <salesperson> out, pays them, pays their expenses, and <salesperson> chases after not only BigCorp's <decisionmaker> but another 100 BigCorps at the same time. 2ndCorp is focused on providing a really good solution in one specific area; there are free ways to do this, but the free ways do not have <salesperson> doing market discovery and finding solutions to <decisionmaker> problems. 2ndCorp has advantages of scale; free solutions have no marketing, staff, etc.

When BigCorp purchases, once <decisionmaker> has been the decider and selected a solution from <salesperson>, then 2ndCorp deploys the solution, the same solution they have deployed hundreds or thousands of times before. Advantages of scale apply. Ultimately <decisionmaker> has to answer to someone (even if they are sole owner of megacorp, their spouse will have comments) and because <decisionmaker> HAS TO ANSWER TO SOMEONE, they will choose the solution that comes with a built in problem fixer and person to yell at called <salesperson>. Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM.

If <decisionmaker> goes for an open source free solution, then they have to personally support it over the upcoming YEARS (sometimes stuff stays in use a long time; Y2K), so the likely result is that they would not deploy a solution that they were not experts in, so probably no code they have to maintain themselves.

In big ticket sales I had three jobs; visit people and listen to their problems, be the person to stand there and get yelled at by the customer. and then get the company to fix the problem. I was the human interface layer.

TL;DR - the suckers are the ones not doing this. It works for good reasons on all sides of the deal.

[alphapapa]

Very interesting and insightful, thanks.

I have a question: do you think that this pattern will continue into the future, or do you think that FOSS, the Internet, and commoditization of hardware and software will ever tilt the balance in favor of in-house staff using free and open solutions?

[gregpilling]

I started a small manufacturing company in 2004. I used some open source software, and set it up myself with the help of Mr. Google. I can cut and paste, but I am no programmer.

Then things got busy, and I couldn't keep everything patched, and we had a hell of a time with spam, and so I hired an inhouse self-taught IT guy that was not very good. It wasn't working and after a year, he went somewhere else (we are still friends) and we went to Google Apps for the spam control and the Docs, Sheets, and Sites.

I know there are many many many free and O/S choices out there. Maybe something better for us than Google Apps. I do not have the time to evaluate hardly anything. If some person comes to me and has a solution, and can explain all the other choices available from free or O/S all the way to Oracle, that exist for me on the market, then I may buy his product or service. If the first thing they sell me works, then I will look at the next thing with eagerness.

As a business owner, I have 1000 headaches and having 2 fewer is great. Free software is not free maintenance. Your o/s software getting hacked (because you didn't know there was a patch) really sucks and can screw up your 4 day long weekend. Or worse. When your small site that brings in $1000 a day in sales and feeds your family tanks, the $25 per month you saved using open source software looks really insignificant, and you feel really stupid.