Will Linux users pay for good apps?

The goal of the poll is to get an idea of whether Linux users will support app development that would provide higher quality software but allow the developer/business to make a living at making solid apps.

you forgot the option
the price is fair with an open-source license

I can't agree to any of your combinations, because they're ambiguous.

What I will say is this: I detest Microsoft's business practices; their OS and apps don't multi-task well; in the area of security they failed miserably and are criminally negligent and irresponsible. However, the computer industry has mushroomed because of them.

I have a Windows partition on several computers to use Adobe InDesign and Photoshop. Additionally, sometimes there are apps that require Windows. Two of my banks not only require Windows, but also, Internet Explorer. So we cannot function in life without a Windows OS at all.

Having said that, even with an educational discount I paid $465 for PageMaker, Photoshop, Illustrator, and (one other app I forgot) in 2002. In 2005 I upgraded PageMaker to InDesign for around $500. So I would pay the going price for Adobe products which were ported to Linux for sure. There are no open source apps which are designed as well, function as well, and do as good a job as InDesign and Photoshop.

no one will sell a totally opensource app. one person will buy it then post it all over for free and it will be legal. So anyone with any marketing background will not "sell" Linux apps as plain opensource. it will take a "modified" opensource license to prevent unpurchased distribution.

Scratch that, thee is one way to "sell" fully opensource apps by depending on support and training service for the app. However, that too changes the situation, as we have seen in many a free and shareware product, apps that are Free but sell support, are going to build in a "need" for support from the get go to guarantee sales of services. Hence, consumers are not getting a truly top notch app at all, but one that has built in support needs. No one really wants to buy that either.

But you have a point that maybe it could have been addded just to see how many follow that line of thinking.


In regards to being "ambiguous" that statement in itself is "ambiguous" for you specify nothing to relate to. Each of those options is an option that has been or is currently being used or tried in the market recently. perhaps you could give an example of what you think is not an "ambiguous" option.

Big Bear

The best part of the open source world, is that it is open source. Your idea/venture, does not appear to fit the criteria. Do you know what open source means/is?
It means:

Here's something we put together in our spare time, we hope you enjoy it so much that you'll contribute, by improving it even more. we want what that mind of yours can come up with, we would like you to be part of the team, not a cash cow. Go ahead and ruin it as you hack it up to the point it's been improved. And if you feel so overwhelmed to the point you need to throw someone some money, hey! open is open, go ahead.

I don't vote on these silly things, but I would pay for a linux app that I needed regardless ot the license if it was better than the free alternatives.

Check this out:

am·big·u·ous (ām-bĭg'yōō-əs) adj. 1. Open to more than one interpretation: an ambiguous reply.

The price was reasonable but the licence was proprietary

The notion of "the price was reasonable" is ambiguous.

The price is high but the license was opensource

The notion of "the price is high" is ambiguous.

The price is "fair" and the license is a type of opensource to stop theft/allow modification

The notion that "the price is fair" is ambiguous. And "a type of license that stops theft while allowing modification" is non-exsistant, if not ambiguous.

Never. All Linux apps should be Free as in Free Beer and opensource

Okay, you're not totally ambiguous. Because beer is not free; it costs when you purchase it, and the results of using it cost the consumer and innocent bystanders. And there are apps for Linux that are neither free, nor open source.

Open Source software has a definite purpose. Perhaps Junior Hacker is right in the supposition that you don't understand open source software. Your statement in post #1:

The goal of the poll is to get an idea of whether Linux users will support app development that would provide higher quality software but allow the developer/business to make a living at making solid apps.

has nothing to do with open source software.

Have you heard of CodeWeavers? They provide, among other products, CrossOver Linux -- which allows you to install many popular Windows productivity applications, plugins and games in Linux, without needing a Microsoft Operating System license. The underlying technology utilized by CodeWeavers to enable Windows software to run under Linux is an open-source technology called Wine. But CodeWeavers products are not open source. They just bought the Wine developer and put him on their payroll to code their product. They help support Wine, also, which is still free as in free air. (Breath [use] it without paying at your own risk.)

Slackware Linux is open source. It's developer makes a good living. It is the oldest Linux distribution. It has often been copied, changed, and posted all over the internet -- akin to your statement in post #4. However, this hasn't caused it's developer to loose money, or sleep, because no one does Slackware like Patrick Volkerding does Slackware. Many are willing to pay for it, even though it can be downloaded for free and changed to your heart's content.

Open source software fills a market niche, and as such, will always be around. It's base of users are people who don't need their hand held, and work with computers on a daily basis.

Closed source software also has a market niche. It's bigger than the open source one, because more people just want to buy and play, without any reading and learning required. They think with their index finger [hint: mouse tool].

When it comes to applications to get work done, my point is that they are tools to do a job. Since no free tool does the job of InDesign and Photoshop as well (in my previous example), I would willingly pay for them properly coded for Slackware Linux.

It's interesting to have such opinions provided. I'm sure it will give us much to consider when the results are included in our article.

There are obviously many different interpretations of open source.

Big Bear

I'm sure it will give us much to consider when the results are included in our article.
What article? Where?

I would be willing to pay for Linux applications as long these three conditions are met.

1) The price is right based on functionality. (I would not pay $800 dollars for an office suite that is on par with open office like MS Office)

2) It must be a native linux app. not requiring wine or other such emulation type environments.

3) If it is an X application, it must be desktop agnostic (not require gnome/kde and the like.) Requiring GTK libraries or the QT libraries is ok, but it must integrate into your desktop(s).

Theres my 2 cents

Originally Posted by BigBearOmaha There are obviously many different interpretations of open source.

Could one of these interpretations help us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

http://www.opensource.org/

I don't mean to beleaguer your thread, or your idea, but it's been discussed since at least 1991. Just trying to bring some clarity and focus ...

BigBearOmaha has asked to have the thread removed and so I have closed it. Shame, it was garnering some good responses.

Good luck with the article BigBearOmaha.