Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Open source valuations remain birdseed

Reply
Thread Tools

Open source valuations remain birdseed

 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-06-2008
Global software revenue was US$191 billion in FY 2008, up from US$176
billion in 2007. And the open-source share of this market was ......?

"Mozilla brought in under $67 million, 85% from Google. Canonical, the
sponsor of Ubuntu, still isn't profitable. SUSE Linux may book $110 million
in revenue this year, Red Hat about $600 million."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3068

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2008
"thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:49133378$(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>> Global software revenue was US$191 billion in FY 2008, up from US$176
>> billion in 2007. And the open-source share of this market was ......?
>>
>> "Mozilla brought in under $67 million, 85% from Google. Canonical, the
>> sponsor of Ubuntu, still isn't profitable. SUSE Linux may book $110
>> million in revenue this year, Red Hat about $600 million."
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3068
>>

>
> Depends on where you count the revenue stream as important. If its how
> much $ MS makes.......


No, it's not. The US$191 billion is how much was taken in **altogether**. I
think I made that perfectly clear. IBM, Adobe, SAP, Oracle, Symantec,Intuit,
EMC, CA, Amdocs, etc all had a share. But the point is that open-source
valuations were miniscule.

>for a convicted monopolist vendor of OSes which should be priced at a
>commodity price...against the above who have to compete....if you think its
>fair that one part of the value chain takes the lion's share...
>


Blah, blah, blah.

> or IBM's linux profit would be interesting...


How much is that exactly?

> plus the associated income from services and hardware sold with a copy of
> RH...
>


Since when does hardware revenue count as software revenue?

And why would we we only want to count service revenue for RH and not all
other software products?

> or small NZ businesses who buy say two U1 servers and then run thier
> business off those, no income for MS, but reasonable of income for the
> kiwis involved....and export dollars....that makes NZ richer and not the
> US.
>


So **any** source of revenue counts as "software revenue" now? <shakes head>

> Why dont you quote some more of the piece and not the selected part which,
>
> "Of course sometimes the bottom line is not the bottom line. Judging the
> success of open source merely through vendor revenue numbers is very
> short-sighted."
>
> Typical of you actually....short sighted.....sums you up well.


You've never been good with numbers, so I'm not surprised that Linux's poor
numbers make no sense to you. In that small circle of nixopliles you court,
Linux seems priceless, I'm sure. But it's the value that **customers** put
on a product that really matters in the end.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2008

"thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:49133421$(E-Mail Removed)...

> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3018
>
> like I said you are short sighted....
>


Like I said, you've never been good with numbers.

The "Cocomo Model"? You've **got** to be kidding! In the real world,
valuation involves estimating what someone would be willing to pay for
something. In the case of the Linux codebase, the answer is absolutely zero.
By design, the Linux codebase is free. So what canm you possibly be on
about?

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2008
"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:49133421$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3018
>>>
>>> like I said you are short sighted....
>>>

>>
>> Like I said, you've never been good with numbers.
>>
>> The "Cocomo Model"? You've **got** to be kidding! In the real world,
>> valuation involves estimating what someone would be willing to pay for
>> something. In the case of the Linux codebase, the answer is absolutely
>> zero. By design, the Linux codebase is free. So what canm you possibly be
>> on about?

>
> Software is typically either developed to be sold for a profit, or it is
> developed to save a cost. Open source software generally falls into that
> latter category. So the amount of revenue from software sold doesn't
> really
> represent the value of the software.
>
> As an example, take OpenOffice.org. It is free. Sales for it are zero.
> Does
> that mean it's not valuable? Of course not. By using it people and
> organisations have saved a lot of money not paying for commercial
> alternatives.
> --


The same could be said for pencil and paper.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2008
"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:49133421$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>
>>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3018
>>>>>
>>>>> like I said you are short sighted....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, you've never been good with numbers.
>>>>
>>>> The "Cocomo Model"? You've **got** to be kidding! In the real world,
>>>> valuation involves estimating what someone would be willing to pay for
>>>> something. In the case of the Linux codebase, the answer is absolutely
>>>> zero. By design, the Linux codebase is free. So what canm you possibly
>>>> be on about?
>>>
>>> Software is typically either developed to be sold for a profit, or it is
>>> developed to save a cost. Open source software generally falls into that
>>> latter category. So the amount of revenue from software sold doesn't
>>> really
>>> represent the value of the software.
>>>
>>> As an example, take OpenOffice.org. It is free. Sales for it are zero.
>>> Does
>>> that mean it's not valuable? Of course not. By using it people and
>>> organisations have saved a lot of money not paying for commercial
>>> alternatives.

>>
>> The same could be said for pencil and paper.

>
> Is pencil and paper free?


No, but it costs a whole lot less than the pc you need to run OO.

> Can do do with pencil and paper all you can do with an office productivity
> suit?
>


No, but you were talking about OO. And for what people actually use that
program to do, pencil and paper is probably better.

> Are you serious?


Absolutely. OO has zero value in the market.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-08-2008
"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:49133421$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3018
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> like I said you are short sighted....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said, you've never been good with numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "Cocomo Model"? You've **got** to be kidding! In the real world,
>>>>>> valuation involves estimating what someone would be willing to pay
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> something. In the case of the Linux codebase, the answer is
>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>> zero. By design, the Linux codebase is free. So what canm you
>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>> be on about?
>>>>>
>>>>> Software is typically either developed to be sold for a profit, or it
>>>>> is developed to save a cost. Open source software generally falls into
>>>>> that latter category. So the amount of revenue from software sold
>>>>> doesn't really
>>>>> represent the value of the software.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an example, take OpenOffice.org. It is free. Sales for it are zero.
>>>>> Does
>>>>> that mean it's not valuable? Of course not. By using it people and
>>>>> organisations have saved a lot of money not paying for commercial
>>>>> alternatives.
>>>>
>>>> The same could be said for pencil and paper.
>>>
>>> Is pencil and paper free?

>>
>> No, but it costs a whole lot less than the pc you need to run OO.

>
> And a whole lot less than the PC AND an MS Office license. What's your
> point?


Hundreds of millions of people have demonstrated that they value Microsoft
Office highly and are willing to pay for it accordingly. OO is valued at
zero, slightly below the price of a decent pencil and a pad of paper, but
requiring a much bigger investment in learning time.

>
>>> Can do do with pencil and paper all you can do with an office
>>> productivity suit?

>>
>> No, but you were talking about OO. And for what people actually use that
>> program to do, pencil and paper is probably better.

>
> Eh? I use it and it does everything for me that MS Office does. Sometimes
> more.


And yoiu'd be willng to pay how much for OO?
>
>>> Are you serious?

>>
>> Absolutely. OO has zero value in the market.

>
> Then you failed to read my post. It has huge value for the organisations
> that have saved a whole lot of money by not having to implement an
> expensive commercial alternative.
>


This thread is about market value. Unless you have customers willing to pay
for your product, it has zero market value. That is the case with OO.

> Using something that is free that saves tens if not hundreds of thousands
> of
> dollars does in licensing costs means OO has a lot of value in the market
> place.


No, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. You don't get to add up the
hypothetical cost of all the things someone has **not** bought and claim
that as some kind of abstract value in some unspecified "market".

> It's an effective cost saver, as is evident by the many
> organisations that have switched to it.
> --


Let me offer the documentation you can never be bothered providing:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/...rg_Deployments

Being able to list all your major deployments on the back of an envelop
isn't what I'd call impressive for a piece of software that's been kicking
around for the better part of a decade, but then maybe your standard is
different.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-09-2008

"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:49133421$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3018
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> like I said you are short sighted....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said, you've never been good with numbers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "Cocomo Model"? You've **got** to be kidding! In the real
>>>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>>> valuation involves estimating what someone would be willing to pay
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> something. In the case of the Linux codebase, the answer is
>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>> zero. By design, the Linux codebase is free. So what canm you
>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>> be on about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Software is typically either developed to be sold for a profit, or
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> is developed to save a cost. Open source software generally falls
>>>>>>> into that latter category. So the amount of revenue from software
>>>>>>> sold doesn't really
>>>>>>> represent the value of the software.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an example, take OpenOffice.org. It is free. Sales for it are
>>>>>>> zero. Does
>>>>>>> that mean it's not valuable? Of course not. By using it people and
>>>>>>> organisations have saved a lot of money not paying for commercial
>>>>>>> alternatives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same could be said for pencil and paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is pencil and paper free?
>>>>
>>>> No, but it costs a whole lot less than the pc you need to run OO.
>>>
>>> And a whole lot less than the PC AND an MS Office license. What's your
>>> point?

>>
>> Hundreds of millions of people have demonstrated that they value
>> Microsoft
>> Office highly and are willing to pay for it accordingly. OO is valued at
>> zero, slightly below the price of a decent pencil and a pad of paper, but

>
> OO is priced at zero. That's not the same thing as being valued at zero,
> as
> I have already pointed out. Using OOo save a lot more money than the cost
> of a pen a a piece of paper, so the value of it is much more than that.
>


OO has great **symbolic value** to nixopliles, who hate Microsoft. And,
depending on one's needs, it arguably has more or less **use value** than
pencil and paper. But like dozens of other wannabe packages vying for
attention, OO has a price in the market that reflects its fair market
value -- that is, what people are willing to pay for it -- which is zero.

>>>>> Can do do with pencil and paper all you can do with an office
>>>>> productivity suit?
>>>>
>>>> No, but you were talking about OO. And for what people actually use
>>>> that
>>>> program to do, pencil and paper is probably better.
>>>
>>> Eh? I use it and it does everything for me that MS Office does.
>>> Sometimes
>>> more.

>>
>> And yoiu'd be willng to pay how much for OO?

>
> Never really thought about it because I've never had to pay for it.
>


Exactly. Open source valuations remain birdseed because the products are
given away for free.

>>>>> Are you serious?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely. OO has zero value in the market.
>>>
>>> Then you failed to read my post. It has huge value for the organisations
>>> that have saved a whole lot of money by not having to implement an
>>> expensive commercial alternative.

>>
>> This thread is about market value. Unless you have customers willing to
>> pay for your product, it has zero market value. That is the case with OO.

>
> And as I have point out "market value" is not determined purely from the
> price of a product - it can also be based on the amount such a product
> saves you.
>


No, don't be ridiculous. Markets require an exchange of goods valued by a
price. If OO's price is zero, it is never involved in market exchange,
because it has no value that can be traded. Full stop.

Perhaps what you really mean to say is that the money you might choose to
spend on MSO could just as well be spent on a video card, say, or a hotel
room -- or even just dropped in a bank account. But there's no free lunch
here. You need to value all the competing items in terms of price, consider
the trade-offs involved in opting for one or more lesser-valued alternatives
(including those valued at zero), and then distribute your hard-earned cash
accordingly. For example -- If you can rationalise sleeping in your car
rather than staying in a decent hotel, then buying that video card might be
a no-brainer. Likewise, if you can rationalise working with OO on some
project instead of MSO, then you might be able to grow your savings account
a little faster. On the other hand, you could decide to get a better job so
that you afford a new video card, the latest version of Microsoft Office, a
night in the best hotel in town, plus added savings/investments.


>>> Using something that is free that saves tens if not hundreds of
>>> thousands
>>> of
>>> dollars does in licensing costs means OO has a lot of value in the
>>> market
>>> place.

>>
>> No, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. You don't get to add up the
>> hypothetical cost of all the things someone has **not** bought and claim
>> that as some kind of abstract value in some unspecified "market".

>
> If you accept that the people who use OOo need an office suite (a fair
> assumption as they wouldn't use OOo otherwise), then those people use OOo
> as an alternative to something else. That something else could well be a
> commercial product that costs $$$. There other other free alternatives too
> though.
>


OO is valued equally witrh all these products:

http://www.thefreecountry.com/utilit...ocessors.shtml

Enjoy!


>>> It's an effective cost saver, as is evident by the many
>>> organisations that have switched to it.
>>> --

>>
>> Let me offer the documentation you can never be bothered providing:
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/...rg_Deployments
>>
>> Being able to list all your major deployments on the back of an envelop
>> isn't what I'd call impressive for a piece of software that's been
>> kicking
>> around for the better part of a decade, but then maybe your standard is
>> different.

>
> <shrugs>. I've never said it is "impressive". I've said it has value in
> the
> market because of the amount of money it saves organisations that use it.
> Refute that if you will, pedant.
> --


This is a matter of simple economics, which you clearly don't understand. By
definition, a "market" for anything requires an exchange of goods valued at
some price. OO has no price and so is never exchanged. It's market value is
zero, moron.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2008
"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:49133421$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3018
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> like I said you are short sighted....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like I said, you've never been good with numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The "Cocomo Model"? You've **got** to be kidding! In the real
>>>>>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>>>>> valuation involves estimating what someone would be willing to
>>>>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> something. In the case of the Linux codebase, the answer is
>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>> zero. By design, the Linux codebase is free. So what canm you
>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>> be on about?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Software is typically either developed to be sold for a profit, or
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> is developed to save a cost. Open source software generally falls
>>>>>>>>> into that latter category. So the amount of revenue from software
>>>>>>>>> sold doesn't really
>>>>>>>>> represent the value of the software.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As an example, take OpenOffice.org. It is free. Sales for it are
>>>>>>>>> zero. Does
>>>>>>>>> that mean it's not valuable? Of course not. By using it people and
>>>>>>>>> organisations have saved a lot of money not paying for commercial
>>>>>>>>> alternatives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The same could be said for pencil and paper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is pencil and paper free?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but it costs a whole lot less than the pc you need to run OO.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a whole lot less than the PC AND an MS Office license. What's your
>>>>> point?
>>>>
>>>> Hundreds of millions of people have demonstrated that they value
>>>> Microsoft
>>>> Office highly and are willing to pay for it accordingly. OO is valued
>>>> at
>>>> zero, slightly below the price of a decent pencil and a pad of paper,
>>>> but
>>>
>>> OO is priced at zero. That's not the same thing as being valued at zero,
>>> as
>>> I have already pointed out. Using OOo save a lot more money than the
>>> cost
>>> of a pen a a piece of paper, so the value of it is much more than that.
>>>

>>
>> OO has great **symbolic value** to nixopliles, who hate Microsoft.

>
> I don't hate Microsoft, I just choose not to use their software product
> where I can. There is no hate there. Only a preference for the
> alternative.
>
>> And,
>> depending on one's needs, it arguably has more or less **use value** than
>> pencil and paper. But like dozens of other wannabe packages vying for
>> attention, OO has a price in the market that reflects its fair market
>> value -- that is, what people are willing to pay for it -- which is
>> zero.

>
> I am willing to pay for it, but I don't have to because it is free.
>


Just how much would you be willing to pay? $1? $5? $100?

>>>>>>> Can do do with pencil and paper all you can do with an office
>>>>>>> productivity suit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but you were talking about OO. And for what people actually use
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> program to do, pencil and paper is probably better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh? I use it and it does everything for me that MS Office does.
>>>>> Sometimes
>>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> And yoiu'd be willng to pay how much for OO?
>>>
>>> Never really thought about it because I've never had to pay for it.

>>
>> Exactly. Open source valuations remain birdseed because the products are
>> given away for free.

>
> I suppose that depends on how these valuations are derived.
>
>>>>>>> Are you serious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely. OO has zero value in the market.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you failed to read my post. It has huge value for the
>>>>> organisations that have saved a whole lot of money by not having to
>>>>> implement an expensive commercial alternative.
>>>>
>>>> This thread is about market value. Unless you have customers willing to
>>>> pay for your product, it has zero market value. That is the case with
>>>> OO.
>>>
>>> And as I have point out "market value" is not determined purely from the
>>> price of a product - it can also be based on the amount such a product
>>> saves you.
>>>

>>
>> No, don't be ridiculous. Markets require an exchange of goods valued by a
>> price.

>
> No, they don't. Market require an exchange of goods or services. A
> purchase
> price is not required.
>
>> If OO's price is zero, it is never involved in market exchange,
>> because it has no value that can be traded. Full stop.

>
> It has huge value to the business that use it. Don't confuse "value"
> with "price".
>


Value in the marketplace **is** price. Saying you really, really like
something is easy. But how much cold hard cash would you be willing to part
with to acquire it? That's what determines whether or not a trade is made.

> What you're saying is that all products that are free have no value.


No value in the market -- that's correct. What can you possibly trade for
nothing?

> That is
> nonsense. Value is determined by what the product does for the bottom line
> of a business - whether that be increasing profits or reducing costs.
>


If that value you've imagined cannot be expressed in terms of a price, how
do you know whether the product/service you've just purchased is making you
money or losing you money?

>> Perhaps what you really mean to say is that the money you might choose to
>> spend on MSO could just as well be spent on a video card, say, or a hotel
>> room -- or even just dropped in a bank account.

>
> Yes. The cost is decreased.


The cost what is decreased?

> You seem to think that MSO is the only
> alternative.


Not at all. I presented you with a long list of free alternatives.

> I have never purchased MSO before, because I have never needed
> to. I have found products that I consider to satisfy my requirement
> without
> costing me anything. Such products have a huge intrinsic value to my
> business because without it my costs would be increase and hence my
> profits
> lowered.
>


Fine. But that has nothing to do with **market value**.

>> But there's no free lunch
>> here. You need to value all the competing items in terms of price,
>> consider the trade-offs involved in opting for one or more lesser-valued
>> alternatives (including those valued at zero), and then distribute your
>> hard-earned cash accordingly. For example -- If you can rationalise
>> sleeping in your car rather than staying in a decent hotel, then buying
>> that video card might be a no-brainer. Likewise, if you can rationalise
>> working with OO on some project instead of MSO, then you might be able to
>> grow your savings account a little faster. On the other hand, you could
>> decide to get a better job so that you afford a new video card, the
>> latest
>> version of Microsoft Office, a night in the best hotel in town, plus
>> added
>> savings/investments.

>
> I have a "better job" and while I can easily afford to buy MSO over and
> over, I still choose not to. It does nothing for me. It provides me
> nothing
> that I cannot get for free.
>
> Besides, I consider MSO to be much more limited than OO because MSO does
> not
> run on the platform I choose to use: KDE on Linux. So I am using a
> superior
> product and it just happens to cost nothing. If OO cost, say $500 for a
> license, I would pay that because the other alternative we are talking
> about (MSO) will not work on my computer without me also installing what I
> consider to be an inferior operating system. So not only does OO give me
> choice, it also allows me to exercise that choice as a much lower cost
> that
> using the alternative you are talking about.
>
> Why would I pay for something I consider to be inferior? Whether you
> consider it to be superior or not is irrevelant - to me, for my need MSO
> is
> inferior.
>



Still, in the real world, OO has no market value. Nothing you've said
changes that fact. Market value is shaped by the aggregate preferences of
hundreds of millions of buyers, Allistar -- as I keep trying to explain,
it's not all about you.

>>>>> Using something that is free that saves tens if not hundreds of
>>>>> thousands
>>>>> of
>>>>> dollars does in licensing costs means OO has a lot of value in the
>>>>> market
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. You don't get to add up the
>>>> hypothetical cost of all the things someone has **not** bought and
>>>> claim
>>>> that as some kind of abstract value in some unspecified "market".
>>>
>>> If you accept that the people who use OOo need an office suite (a fair
>>> assumption as they wouldn't use OOo otherwise), then those people use
>>> OOo
>>> as an alternative to something else. That something else could well be a
>>> commercial product that costs $$$. There other other free alternatives
>>> too though.
>>>

>>
>> OO is valued equally witrh all these products:
>>
>> http://www.thefreecountry.com/utilit...ocessors.shtml
>>
>> Enjoy!

>
> All products that can reduce business costs and hence improve profit.
>
> Why would all of those products have been developed if there were not a
> market for them?
>


There's a download link for them -- not a market.
\
>>>>> It's an effective cost saver, as is evident by the many
>>>>> organisations that have switched to it.
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Let me offer the documentation you can never be bothered providing:
>>>>
>>>>

> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/...rg_Deployments
>>>>
>>>> Being able to list all your major deployments on the back of an envelop
>>>> isn't what I'd call impressive for a piece of software that's been
>>>> kicking
>>>> around for the better part of a decade, but then maybe your standard is
>>>> different.
>>>
>>> <shrugs>. I've never said it is "impressive". I've said it has value in
>>> the
>>> market because of the amount of money it saves organisations that use
>>> it.
>>> Refute that if you will, pedant.

>>
>> This is a matter of simple economics, which you clearly don't understand.
>> By definition, a "market" for anything requires an exchange of goods
>> valued at some price.

>
> No it doesn't, and that is the part you fail to grasp. Having a market for
> something doesn't imply that something is sold for a price. Often there is
> a market for things that are free. OO is an example of that.
>


No, it's not.

> There is a huge market for LAMP installations. You can doenload and
> install
> one for free. You can use one and pay for a service contract if you wish.
> Being free doesn't mean there is no market for LAMP installations, because
> there obviously is, as is evident from the number of installation out
> there.
>


Again, there's no market involved in any of that.

>> OO has no price and so is never exchanged. It's
>> market value is zero, moron.

>
> I have saved money using OOo. So have many others.


For example....?
>
> The profit of my business
> has increased because I chose to use OO instead of paying for an
> alternative. The profit of other businesses have increase because their
> deployment of OO has reduced their costs. Therein lies the market.
> --


OO then adds no value to your business but simply keeps costs from rising,
is that it?

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-10-2008
"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "thingy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:49133421$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=3018
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like I said you are short sighted....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said, you've never been good with numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The "Cocomo Model"? You've **got** to be kidding! In the real
>>>>>>>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>>>>>>> valuation involves estimating what someone would be willing to
>>>>>>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> something. In the case of the Linux codebase, the answer is
>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>> zero. By design, the Linux codebase is free. So what canm you
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> be on about?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Software is typically either developed to be sold for a profit,
>>>>>>>>>>> or it
>>>>>>>>>>> is developed to save a cost. Open source software generally
>>>>>>>>>>> falls
>>>>>>>>>>> into that latter category. So the amount of revenue from
>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>> sold doesn't really
>>>>>>>>>>> represent the value of the software.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As an example, take OpenOffice.org. It is free. Sales for it are
>>>>>>>>>>> zero. Does
>>>>>>>>>>> that mean it's not valuable? Of course not. By using it people
>>>>>>>>>>> and organisations have saved a lot of money not paying for
>>>>>>>>>>> commercial alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The same could be said for pencil and paper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is pencil and paper free?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, but it costs a whole lot less than the pc you need to run OO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a whole lot less than the PC AND an MS Office license. What's
>>>>>>> your point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hundreds of millions of people have demonstrated that they value
>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>> Office highly and are willing to pay for it accordingly. OO is valued
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> zero, slightly below the price of a decent pencil and a pad of paper,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>
>>>>> OO is priced at zero. That's not the same thing as being valued at
>>>>> zero, as
>>>>> I have already pointed out. Using OOo save a lot more money than the
>>>>> cost
>>>>> of a pen a a piece of paper, so the value of it is much more than
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OO has great **symbolic value** to nixopliles, who hate Microsoft.
>>>
>>> I don't hate Microsoft, I just choose not to use their software product
>>> where I can. There is no hate there. Only a preference for the
>>> alternative.
>>>
>>>> And,
>>>> depending on one's needs, it arguably has more or less **use value**
>>>> than pencil and paper. But like dozens of other wannabe packages vying
>>>> for attention, OO has a price in the market that reflects its fair
>>>> market
>>>> value -- that is, what people are willing to pay for it -- which is
>>>> zero.
>>>
>>> I am willing to pay for it, but I don't have to because it is free.

>>
>> Just how much would you be willing to pay? $1? $5? $100?

>
> Tricky to answer since there are other adequate alternatives which are
> available for nothing. But assuming that was not the case, I'd pay $500 I
> suppose.
>
>>>>>>>>> Can do do with pencil and paper all you can do with an office
>>>>>>>>> productivity suit?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, but you were talking about OO. And for what people actually use
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> program to do, pencil and paper is probably better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eh? I use it and it does everything for me that MS Office does.
>>>>>>> Sometimes
>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yoiu'd be willng to pay how much for OO?
>>>>>
>>>>> Never really thought about it because I've never had to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Open source valuations remain birdseed because the products
>>>> are
>>>> given away for free.
>>>
>>> I suppose that depends on how these valuations are derived.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you serious?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely. OO has zero value in the market.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you failed to read my post. It has huge value for the
>>>>>>> organisations that have saved a whole lot of money by not having to
>>>>>>> implement an expensive commercial alternative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This thread is about market value. Unless you have customers willing
>>>>>> to pay for your product, it has zero market value. That is the case
>>>>>> with OO.
>>>>>
>>>>> And as I have point out "market value" is not determined purely from
>>>>> the price of a product - it can also be based on the amount such a
>>>>> product saves you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, don't be ridiculous. Markets require an exchange of goods valued by
>>>> a price.
>>>
>>> No, they don't. Market require an exchange of goods or services. A
>>> purchase
>>> price is not required.
>>>
>>>> If OO's price is zero, it is never involved in market exchange,
>>>> because it has no value that can be traded. Full stop.
>>>
>>> It has huge value to the business that use it. Don't confuse "value"
>>> with "price".
>>>

>>
>> Value in the marketplace **is** price. Saying you really, really like
>> something is easy. But how much cold hard cash would you be willing to
>> part with to acquire it? That's what determines whether or not a trade is
>> made.

>
> Then saying that OO has no value value in the market place (where you
> define
> that to include only things that have a price) is different to saying that
> OO has no value. And the points discussed here are moot - it becomes a
> game
> of semantics.
>


A matter of semantics? Hardly. Comparing the market value of products is
what drives business. Your opinion about the value of OO is just that -- an
opinion -- untilk you take it to the mnarket and see wghat others are
willing to pay for it. So far at least, that value appears to be zero. Deal
with it.

>>> What you're saying is that all products that are free have no value.

>>
>> No value in the market -- that's correct. What can you possibly trade for
>> nothing?

>
> You can trade a piece of software that san save a business money.
>


Nothing for nothing = nothing.

> But the makers of OO haven't produced a product that they can trade for
> money.
>


Exactly. It has no markert value whatsoever.

>>> That is
>>> nonsense. Value is determined by what the product does for the bottom
>>> line of a business - whether that be increasing profits or reducing
>>> costs.

>>
>> If that value you've imagined cannot be expressed in terms of a price,
>> how
>> do you know whether the product/service you've just purchased is making
>> you money or losing you money?

>
> I know that it has saved me a > $1000 license fee for the equivalent MS
> products.
>


Like any buyer, your standard of "equivalent" is your own. If you think that
OO=MSO, then you'd be silly to pay anything for either. Hundreds of millions
others disgree, however -- that's hopw markets work.

>>>> Perhaps what you really mean to say is that the money you might choose
>>>> to spend on MSO could just as well be spent on a video card, say, or a
>>>> hotel room -- or even just dropped in a bank account.
>>>
>>> Yes. The cost is decreased.

>>
>> The cost what is decreased?

>
> The cost of business is decreased because I have spent less money on the
> tools I need to do business.
>


You've said repeatedly that you don't want MSO. So not buying MSO has saved
you nothing.

>>> You seem to think that MSO is the only
>>> alternative.

>>
>> Not at all. I presented you with a long list of free alternatives.

>
> Indeed you did - which highlights my point. Those products have a value,
> because if they did not then people would not use them.
>
>>> I have never purchased MSO before, because I have never needed
>>> to. I have found products that I consider to satisfy my requirement
>>> without
>>> costing me anything. Such products have a huge intrinsic value to my
>>> business because without it my costs would be increase and hence my
>>> profits
>>> lowered.

>>
>> Fine. But that has nothing to do with **market value**.

>
> Not the way you define it, no.
>
>>>> But there's no free lunch
>>>> here. You need to value all the competing items in terms of price,
>>>> consider the trade-offs involved in opting for one or more
>>>> lesser-valued
>>>> alternatives (including those valued at zero), and then distribute your
>>>> hard-earned cash accordingly. For example -- If you can rationalise
>>>> sleeping in your car rather than staying in a decent hotel, then buying
>>>> that video card might be a no-brainer. Likewise, if you can rationalise
>>>> working with OO on some project instead of MSO, then you might be able
>>>> to grow your savings account a little faster. On the other hand, you
>>>> could decide to get a better job so that you afford a new video card,
>>>> the latest
>>>> version of Microsoft Office, a night in the best hotel in town, plus
>>>> added
>>>> savings/investments.
>>>
>>> I have a "better job" and while I can easily afford to buy MSO over and
>>> over, I still choose not to. It does nothing for me. It provides me
>>> nothing
>>> that I cannot get for free.
>>>
>>> Besides, I consider MSO to be much more limited than OO because MSO does
>>> not
>>> run on the platform I choose to use: KDE on Linux. So I am using a
>>> superior
>>> product and it just happens to cost nothing. If OO cost, say $500 for a
>>> license, I would pay that because the other alternative we are talking
>>> about (MSO) will not work on my computer without me also installing what
>>> I consider to be an inferior operating system. So not only does OO give
>>> me choice, it also allows me to exercise that choice as a much lower
>>> cost
>>> that
>>> using the alternative you are talking about.
>>>
>>> Why would I pay for something I consider to be inferior? Whether you
>>> consider it to be superior or not is irrevelant - to me, for my need MSO
>>> is
>>> inferior.

>>
>> Still, in the real world, OO has no market value. Nothing you've said
>> changes that fact. Market value is shaped by the aggregate preferences of
>> hundreds of millions of buyers, Allistar -- as I keep trying to explain,
>> it's not all about you.

>
> I am using myself as an example to show that OO has value. Just not the
> way
> you define it. In which case we are debating cross purposes and this isn't
> likely to get very far.
>


Correct. You wouldn't get far in the market arguing that OO has any value
other than its fair market value.

>>>>>>> Using something that is free that saves tens if not hundreds of
>>>>>>> thousands
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> dollars does in licensing costs means OO has a lot of value in the
>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. You don't get to add up the
>>>>>> hypothetical cost of all the things someone has **not** bought and
>>>>>> claim
>>>>>> that as some kind of abstract value in some unspecified "market".
>>>>>
>>>>> If you accept that the people who use OOo need an office suite (a fair
>>>>> assumption as they wouldn't use OOo otherwise), then those people use
>>>>> OOo
>>>>> as an alternative to something else. That something else could well be
>>>>> a commercial product that costs $$$. There other other free
>>>>> alternatives too though.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OO is valued equally witrh all these products:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thefreecountry.com/utilit...ocessors.shtml
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy!
>>>
>>> All products that can reduce business costs and hence improve profit.
>>>
>>> Why would all of those products have been developed if there were not a
>>> market for them?
>>>

>>
>> There's a download link for them -- not a market.

>
> The fact that people use them shows that there is a market for them.
>


A market for download links? Absolutely. Just look at Google.

>>>>>>> It's an effective cost saver, as is evident by the many
>>>>>>> organisations that have switched to it.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me offer the documentation you can never be bothered providing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/...rg_Deployments
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being able to list all your major deployments on the back of an
>>>>>> envelop isn't what I'd call impressive for a piece of software that's
>>>>>> been kicking
>>>>>> around for the better part of a decade, but then maybe your standard
>>>>>> is different.
>>>>>
>>>>> <shrugs>. I've never said it is "impressive". I've said it has value
>>>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>> market because of the amount of money it saves organisations that use
>>>>> it.
>>>>> Refute that if you will, pedant.
>>>>
>>>> This is a matter of simple economics, which you clearly don't
>>>> understand. By definition, a "market" for anything requires an exchange
>>>> of goods valued at some price.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't, and that is the part you fail to grasp. Having a market
>>> for something doesn't imply that something is sold for a price. Often
>>> there is a market for things that are free. OO is an example of that.

>>
>> No, it's not.

>
> Semantics. And at this point it's obvious that nothing can be gained from
> discussing cross purposed. OO has a value. That is a fact. It it had no
> value then people would not use it.
>


Use value is not market value. I've explained the difference to you many
times. If you can't trade something in a market, no matter how useful you
claim it is, then it has no market value. Full stop.

>>> There is a huge market for LAMP installations. You can doenload and
>>> install
>>> one for free. You can use one and pay for a service contract if you
>>> wish.
>>> Being free doesn't mean there is no market for LAMP installations,
>>> because there obviously is, as is evident from the number of
>>> installation
>>> out there.

>>
>> Again, there's no market involved in any of that.

>
> Yes there is. There is the market of web servers.
>


That's a hardware market.

> Google is free. No one charges yo to use it. Are you going to tell me that
> there is no market for Google?
>


There is a market for Google's core services as a supplier of targetted
ad-links. From a business standpoint, search is just a technique for finding
the customers that advertisers will pay to attract.

>>>> OO has no price and so is never exchanged. It's
>>>> market value is zero, moron.
>>>
>>> I have saved money using OOo. So have many others.

>>
>> For example....?

>
> Google, as mentioned above. Linux (of various flavours). Any free
> application that is used by multiple people.
>
>>> The profit of my business
>>> has increased because I chose to use OO instead of paying for an
>>> alternative. The profit of other businesses have increase because their
>>> deployment of OO has reduced their costs. Therein lies the market.

>>
>> OO then adds no value to your business but simply keeps costs from
>> rising,
>> is that it?

>
> OO add value to my business because it allows me to do the things I could
> not do without it (spreadsheets, documents, presentations etc). It saves
> me
> the money of having to purchase an (inferior) alternative.
> --


Like I said, it adds no value to your business then.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2008
"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>> impossible wrote:

>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> A matter of semantics? Hardly. Comparing the market value of products is
>> what drives business. Your opinion about the value of OO is just that --
>> an opinion -- untilk you take it to the mnarket and see wghat others are
>> willing to pay for it. So far at least, that value appears to be zero.
>> Deal with it.

>
> What also drives business is the ability to minimise costs. OO is one of
> many ways they can do that. So OO is valuable to business in this regard.
>


Minimising costs is simply prudent -- it does not "drive business".
Successful businesses add value to products and services that customers
could otherwise acquire elsewhere. Customers aren't the least bit interested
in a business's costs -- only in whether or not the product or service
delivered to them is worth the asking price.

>>>>> What you're saying is that all products that are free have no value.
>>>>
>>>> No value in the market -- that's correct. What can you possibly trade
>>>> for nothing?
>>>
>>> You can trade a piece of software that san save a business money.

>>
>> Nothing for nothing = nothing.

>
> It's not "nothing for nothing". It's "a functional office suite for
> nothing". And that office suite helps business do their business.
>


Some evidence would be nice. Otherwise, I'm going to have to assume that by
"business" you mean simply **your business**.

>>> But the makers of OO haven't produced a product that they can trade for
>>> money.

>>
>> Exactly. It has no markert value whatsoever.

>
> Yet is has value.
>


Be a good boy and just admit you were wrong about OO having market value.

>>>>> That is
>>>>> nonsense. Value is determined by what the product does for the bottom
>>>>> line of a business - whether that be increasing profits or reducing
>>>>> costs.
>>>>
>>>> If that value you've imagined cannot be expressed in terms of a price,
>>>> how
>>>> do you know whether the product/service you've just purchased is making
>>>> you money or losing you money?
>>>
>>> I know that it has saved me a > $1000 license fee for the equivalent MS
>>> products.

>>
>> Like any buyer, your standard of "equivalent" is your own. If you think
>> that OO=MSO, then you'd be silly to pay anything for either. Hundreds of
>> millions others disgree, however -- that's hopw markets work.

>
> Yet many have decided to use OO because it makes doing business for them
> easier. They use it and it saves them time and money. It has value for
> them.
>


Your needle is stuck, Allistar.

>>>>>> Perhaps what you really mean to say is that the money you might
>>>>>> choose
>>>>>> to spend on MSO could just as well be spent on a video card, say, or
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> hotel room -- or even just dropped in a bank account.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. The cost is decreased.
>>>>
>>>> The cost what is decreased?
>>>
>>> The cost of business is decreased because I have spent less money on the
>>> tools I need to do business.

>>
>> You've said repeatedly that you don't want MSO. So not buying MSO has
>> saved you nothing.

>
> Aside from the fact that I cannot use MSO even if I wanted to because they
> only target a single platform, I save myself money because I use OO. How?
> Because calculating complicated spreadsheets, entering invoices and
> automatically working out my GST and income tax returns is a hell of a lot
> easier with OO than with paper and pencil. It save me a lot of time, which
> means it saves me a lot of money.
>


Really, Allistar, you don't need a spreadsheet to calculate GST. But just
for fun, got an estimate of exactly how much time and money you've saved by
downloading and installing a clunky 120Mb office suite to do multiplication?

> This isn't about MSO. It's about the fact that using OO saves me money. In
> that regard it has value for my business.
>


I'll wait for that estimate before replying.

>>>>> You seem to think that MSO is the only
>>>>> alternative.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. I presented you with a long list of free alternatives.
>>>
>>> Indeed you did - which highlights my point. Those products have a value,
>>> because if they did not then people would not use them.


> [snip] [unsnip]


>>> I have never purchased MSO before, because I have never needed
>>> to. I have found products that I consider to satisfy my requirement
>>> without
>>> costing me anything. Such products have a huge intrinsic value to my
>>> business because without it my costs would be increase and hence my
>>> profits
>>> lowered.

>>
>> Fine. But that has nothing to do with **market value**.

>
> Not the way you define it, no.
>
>>>> But there's no free lunch
>>>> here. You need to value all the competing items in terms of price,
>>>> consider the trade-offs involved in opting for one or more
>>>> lesser-valued
>>>> alternatives (including those valued at zero), and then distribute your
>>>> hard-earned cash accordingly. For example -- If you can rationalise
>>>> sleeping in your car rather than staying in a decent hotel, then buying
>>>> that video card might be a no-brainer. Likewise, if you can rationalise
>>>> working with OO on some project instead of MSO, then you might be able
>>>> to grow your savings account a little faster. On the other hand, you
>>>> could decide to get a better job so that you afford a new video card,
>>>> the latest
>>>> version of Microsoft Office, a night in the best hotel in town, plus
>>>> added
>>>> savings/investments.
>>>
>>> I have a "better job" and while I can easily afford to buy MSO over and
>>> over, I still choose not to. It does nothing for me. It provides me
>>> nothing
>>> that I cannot get for free.
>>>
>>> Besides, I consider MSO to be much more limited than OO because MSO does
>>> not
>>> run on the platform I choose to use: KDE on Linux. So I am using a
>>> superior
>>> product and it just happens to cost nothing. If OO cost, say $500 for a
>>> license, I would pay that because the other alternative we are talking
>>> about (MSO) will not work on my computer without me also installing what
>>> I consider to be an inferior operating system. So not only does OO give
>>> me choice, it also allows me to exercise that choice as a much lower
>>> cost
>>> that
>>> using the alternative you are talking about.

>
> Don't you agree? They may not have a "market value" as you define it, but
> they DO have a value.
>


My definition of market value is the standard economic definition. If you
want to invent a new definition, please be good enough to cite some
authority besides your imagination.

>>>>> Why would I pay for something I consider to be inferior? Whether you
>>>>> consider it to be superior or not is irrevelant - to me, for my need
>>>>> MSO is
>>>>> inferior.
>>>>
>>>> Still, in the real world, OO has no market value. Nothing you've said
>>>> changes that fact. Market value is shaped by the aggregate preferences
>>>> of hundreds of millions of buyers, Allistar -- as I keep trying to
>>>> explain, it's not all about you.
>>>
>>> I am using myself as an example to show that OO has value. Just not the
>>> way
>>> you define it. In which case we are debating cross purposes and this
>>> isn't likely to get very far.

>>
>> Correct. You wouldn't get far in the market arguing that OO has any value
>> other than its fair market value.

>
> Really? If I said that using OO has saved me, say, $1500 a year since I
> started using it - then it would appear that it has a significant value to
> me. And I am not alone.
>


If you said that OO has saved you, say, $1500 a year since you started using
it, any thoughful person would ask you for evidence. Sorry, Allistar, but
merely choosing to not buy something doesn't enrich you one cent. You'll
have to earn your income like the rest of us.

> Why do you think companies and organisations use OO if it had no value to
> them?
>


Beats me. Dedication to the nix cause?

>>>>>>>>> Using something that is free that saves tens if not hundreds of
>>>>>>>>> thousands
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> dollars does in licensing costs means OO has a lot of value in the
>>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. You don't get to add up
>>>>>>>> the hypothetical cost of all the things someone has **not** bought
>>>>>>>> and claim
>>>>>>>> that as some kind of abstract value in some unspecified "market".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you accept that the people who use OOo need an office suite (a
>>>>>>> fair assumption as they wouldn't use OOo otherwise), then those
>>>>>>> people use OOo
>>>>>>> as an alternative to something else. That something else could well
>>>>>>> be a commercial product that costs $$$. There other other free
>>>>>>> alternatives too though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OO is valued equally witrh all these products:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.thefreecountry.com/utilit...ocessors.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Enjoy!
>>>>>
>>>>> All products that can reduce business costs and hence improve profit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would all of those products have been developed if there were not
>>>>> a
>>>>> market for them?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a download link for them -- not a market.
>>>
>>> The fact that people use them shows that there is a market for them.

>>
>> A market for download links? Absolutely. Just look at Google.

>
> A service you can use for free. Thanks for highlighting my point.
>


See below, where I emphatically refute that ridiculous claim. Or did you
delete that part of my remarks?

>>>>>>>>> It's an effective cost saver, as is evident by the many
>>>>>>>>> organisations that have switched to it.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me offer the documentation you can never be bothered providing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>

> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/...rg_Deployments
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Being able to list all your major deployments on the back of an
>>>>>>>> envelop isn't what I'd call impressive for a piece of software
>>>>>>>> that's been kicking
>>>>>>>> around for the better part of a decade, but then maybe your
>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>> is different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <shrugs>. I've never said it is "impressive". I've said it has value
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> market because of the amount of money it saves organisations that
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> Refute that if you will, pedant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a matter of simple economics, which you clearly don't
>>>>>> understand. By definition, a "market" for anything requires an
>>>>>> exchange of goods valued at some price.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't, and that is the part you fail to grasp. Having a market
>>>>> for something doesn't imply that something is sold for a price. Often
>>>>> there is a market for things that are free. OO is an example of that.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>> Semantics. And at this point it's obvious that nothing can be gained
>>> from
>>> discussing cross purposed. OO has a value. That is a fact. It it had no
>>> value then people would not use it.

>>
>> Use value is not market value. I've explained the difference to you many
>> times. If you can't trade something in a market, no matter how useful you
>> claim it is, then it has no market value. Full stop.

>
> Then we *are* discussing different things. I am saying that OO has value
> to
> businesses. To me that's far more important than what you call "market
> value". It's the use value that is important, and that's what businesses
> will be looking at when it comes to evaluating a product or service.
>
>>>>> There is a huge market for LAMP installations. You can doenload and
>>>>> install
>>>>> one for free. You can use one and pay for a service contract if you
>>>>> wish.
>>>>> Being free doesn't mean there is no market for LAMP installations,
>>>>> because there obviously is, as is evident from the number of
>>>>> installation
>>>>> out there.
>>>>
>>>> Again, there's no market involved in any of that.
>>>
>>> Yes there is. There is the market of web servers.

>>
>> That's a hardware market.

>
> I mean the software side, not the hardware side.
>
>>> Google is free. No one charges yo to use it. Are you going to tell me
>>> that there is no market for Google?

>>
>> There is a market for Google's core services as a supplier of targetted
>> ad-links. From a business standpoint, search is just a technique for
>> finding the customers that advertisers will pay to attract.

>
> Yet there is a huge market for free a web search - a HUGE market, because
> Google can leverage what they give away for free and make money off it.
>


Google is giving away nothing. It has legal ownership of its intellectual
property in search technology and it has leveraged that resource to create a
value added service for advertisers.

>>>>>> OO has no price and so is never exchanged. It's
>>>>>> market value is zero, moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have saved money using OOo. So have many others.
>>>>
>>>> For example....?
>>>
>>> Google, as mentioned above. Linux (of various flavours). Any free
>>> application that is used by multiple people.
>>>
>>>>> The profit of my business
>>>>> has increased because I chose to use OO instead of paying for an
>>>>> alternative. The profit of other businesses have increase because
>>>>> their
>>>>> deployment of OO has reduced their costs. Therein lies the market.
>>>>
>>>> OO then adds no value to your business but simply keeps costs from
>>>> rising,
>>>> is that it?
>>>
>>> OO add value to my business because it allows me to do the things I
>>> could
>>> not do without it (spreadsheets, documents, presentations etc). It saves
>>> me
>>> the money of having to purchase an (inferior) alternative.
>>> --

>>
>> Like I said, it adds no value to your business then.

>
> Eh? I have explained how using OO saves me time and money, and you think
> that means "no value"? Saving me time and money is a huge value to my
> business as it increases my profits. That is a value.
>
> I use other free tools that provide value to my business. Productivity
> tools
> for example. Free operating systems. Without these things I wouldn't be
> able to do business (as I'm in the IT industry, so such tools are
> required). Are you going to tell me than a free operating system adds no
> value to my business, given that I cannot do business without an OS?
> --


A free operating system adds no value to your business. If you think it
does, I fear for your clients.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[OT] economics and valuations Bill Cunningham C Programming 3 10-13-2009 09:12 PM
How to set up Treeview so that segments opened by user remain open until closed by user. keithb ASP .Net 0 04-22-2006 04:30 PM
problem securin network, adjustments don't remain =?Utf-8?B?U2FuZHNMb3Zl?= Wireless Networking 2 02-27-2006 01:34 AM
Open Source Conference in Japan: Open Source Realize Forum 2005 pat eyler Ruby 1 03-05-2005 03:50 AM
How to remain checkBox status when datagrid page changed? Chen Sun via .NET 247 ASP .Net 1 07-03-2004 08:58 PM



Advertisments