[OT] money (was: Microsoft removes Netscape support from IE)

Jecel Assumpcao Jr jecel at merlintec.com
Fri Jul 27 22:18:06 UTC 2001


Though off topic, this thread has touched on many things that are very 
interesting for me.

On Thursday 26 July 2001 17:15, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Chris Espinosa: We'll never do that; we're a HARDWARE vendor! The
> software is just to sell our hardware.

That is my position as well. The key issue is to license your hardware 
design as widely as possible. Just because Apple did it badly doesn't 
mean it is a doomed model.

I have set up a Swiki about my object oriented hardware:

   http://www.merlintec.com:8080/hardware

There is still not much there, yet. The Self/R swiki is equally sparse:

   http://www.merlintec.com:8080/software

A few weeks back I seriously considered adopting Squeak as my system 
software exclusively since I feel a strong community is more important 
than technical details, but in the end I decided to try to build a 
simpler system and run Squeak (and Java) on top of it.

But I don't see closed software as a real option (except for Microsoft, 
for now) for the foundation layers. So I will try to make money from 
hardware instead.

> I do think that people will balk at the constant cost "subscription
> model", which is pay-for-use, but who knows?  And has for your
> scenario that has Windows dying off in favor of free software, there
> are plenty of arguments that the free software model will fail, too.

This is not "pay-for-use" but "pay-to-rent" instead. There is a very 
serious difference. If you rent Microsoft Office, you are unlikely to 
use any alternatives since you already paid for it. With a true 
pay-for-use system, however, just having it on your disk doesn't cost 
anything. Supposing a competitor charges the same thing as Microsoft, 
it would cost me the same to type my next letter in Word or AmiPro and 
it wouldn't be a big deal to have both installed.

Of course, users might like this "ticking meter" system even less than 
"pay-to-rent" but it is closer to "friction free capitalism" than the 
rent model and it has lower barriers to entry. It is also better suited 
to "peer-to-peer capitalism" where anyone can contribute and make 
money. There is more at 
http://www.virtualschool.edu/cox/Superdistribution.html

I don't think application software has to be free. I don't think 
content has to be free. Let's find a way to make money from this stuff 
and to attract a lot more people who will also make money.

And underneath all that: free system software and neat hardware!

-- Jecel




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list