According to this summary, over 95%* of the top email clients are created and sold (through advertising or licensing) through proprietary licenses. Most of you probably use one of these email clients, if not at home, then at work. The acquisition and licensing of these email clients is supposed to make your life easier. The goal of capitalism is to provide exactly what the customer desires at exactly the price at which he values the good or service if a firm can figure out a way to do so. Software acquisition doesn't fall outside of the strictures of capitalism. Software companies aim to satiate their target audience with functionality while maximizing profits.
All to often a proprietary software company views the market as a cut throat zero sum game. If they gained a customer or a feature, someone else must lose their market share or be locked out of that advanced idea. This bears out in the way proprietary software has been marketed and deals have been struck. Proprietary software companies often pitch their product akin to the fire Prometheus brought down from the mountaintop.
Sample exaggerated marketing plan for a proprietary email client
Software Company X: Hear ye! Hear ye! We have done extensive market research into the problem of sending messages to your loved ones. The best and brightest user experience guru's were hired. The smartest people, ever, have tested it and all agree. 500,000,000 people tested it and 98% agree that its the best thing to ever have existed. We have put the soul of our company into this product and we think our brilliance/diligence/cleverness/truthiness shines through. Just wait until you try it; your life will be changed forever (for the better!).
Representative of the 2% who disagreed: I doesn't do what I need it to do.
Software Company X: Of course it does.
Representative of the 2% who disagreed: No, it doesn't.
Software Company X: Oh, our market study and usability testing indicated that there wasn't sufficient demand in the market to justify our adding that functionality in. Plus, that feature would negatively affect the doohickey we added for a feature we thought was slightly more important than the one that is critical for your business.
Representative of the 2% who disagreed: Well, that's honest at least. What do you propose to do for me? Are you going to add my feature in?
Software Company X: Nope. We're working on other doohickeys that have nothing to do with your needs.
Representative of the 2% who disagreed: Well can I change it myself then?
Software Company X: No way. We are very proud of our work and have thus put it behind an iron citadel of copyright and intellectual property law. If you change it, watch out 'cause we'll sue your ass.
Representative of the 2% who disagreed: So what can I do?
Software Company X: Well, the other 98% are happy. Why don't you just settle down and work exactly like everyone else?
The italics captures my objection to proprietary software; It locks you into a way of thinking and organizing your life. Outlook users are forced to organize their day around different idea bins (mailbox, calendar, task list, created by software developers in Redmond, Washington. How many ideas have never come into existence because they didn't fit neatly into the Outlook world?
Enterprises, particularly in the nonprofit world where creativity is the lifeblood of sustainability, are locked into day to day patterns without any avenue for exploration. FLOSS, simply by providing the possibility for change, could force people to approach their day to day work a little differently than the next guy, think of a problem in a slightly different way, or help people interact with their work in a way they prefer. FLOSS, in short, presents the user with the terrible responsibility of choice for our daily routine.
With terrific responsibility, comes terrific power.
*Exceptions include open source Mozilla Thunderbird,+ Sunbird and Lightning,and the open source-friendly components of Lotus Notes
No comments:
Post a Comment