Open source valuations remain birdseed

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by impossible, Nov 6, 2008.

  1. impossible

    impossible Guest

    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
     
    impossible, Nov 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:49133378$...
    > 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.
     
    impossible, Nov 7, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. impossible

    impossible Guest

    Re: Another advantage of code visibility is value visibility.

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:49133421$...

    > 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?
     
    impossible, Nov 7, 2008
    #3
  4. impossible

    impossible Guest

    Re: Another advantage of code visibility is value visibility.

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "thingy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:49133421$...
    >>
    >>> 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.
     
    impossible, Nov 7, 2008
    #4
  5. impossible

    impossible Guest

    Re: Another advantage of code visibility is value visibility.

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "thingy" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:49133421$...
    >>>>
    >>>>> 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.
     
    impossible, Nov 8, 2008
    #5
  6. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "thingy" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:49133421$...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> 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/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_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.
     
    impossible, Nov 8, 2008
    #6
  7. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "thingy" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:49133421$...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> 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/utilities/wordprocessors.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/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_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.
     
    impossible, Nov 9, 2008
    #7
  8. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "thingy" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>> news:49133421$...
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> 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/utilities/wordprocessors.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/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_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?
     
    impossible, Nov 10, 2008
    #8
  9. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> "thingy" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>> news:49133421$...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/utilities/wordprocessors.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/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_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.
     
    impossible, Nov 10, 2008
    #9
  10. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> 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/utilities/wordprocessors.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/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_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.
     
    impossible, Nov 11, 2008
    #10
  11. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> 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".

    >
    > The ability to minimise costs and maximise profits is definitely a driver
    > for business. To suggest otherwise is crazy.
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Customers aren't interested in business costs, but the businesses
    > themselves
    > sure are.
    >


    I repeat, reducing costs is a matter of prudence, but it does not drive
    business -- innovating, adding value, and winning customers drives business.
    And for that you need talented people and productive tools. Both tend to
    cost real money precisely because both are in great demand in a competitive
    market. I gather you have little need for either talent or productivity in
    your chosen line of work, but others have a different perspective.

    >>>>>>> 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**.

    >
    > Are you saying to me that out of the hundreds of thousands of users of OO,
    > not one of them (other than me) find that it helps their business?
    >


    Are you saying to me that among these "hundreds of thousands" you can't name
    even a handful of the businesses you claim are using OO?


    >>>>> 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.

    >
    > Your definition of "market value" was spurious and ill-defined at best. It
    > has value in the market. But that's not what you call "market value.
    >


    My definition of market value is crystal clear and fully in line with
    standard economic analysis. Yours is sheer gibberish.

    >>>>>>> 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.

    >
    > Be a good boy and just admit that OO has value for businesses.
    >
    >>>>>>>> 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?

    >
    > I don't know, I don't use a clunky 120Mb office suite, so I couldn't say.


    Blind faith is a dangerous thing in business. Haven't you at least run some
    rough numbers?

    > But until you know the nature of my business, the thousands of expense
    > lines, the tax exempt invoices and other income - I don't think you are in
    > a position to say what calculations are involved to calculate my GST. It's
    > more than a simple multiplication. I've already said that using OO
    > probably
    > saves my $1500 a year in time alone.
    >


    And yet it hasn't allowed you to do a proper financial analysis of anything.
    You're simply guessing that OO is saving you money because it costs you
    nothing up front to stick it on your computer. Why kind of businessman are
    you?

    >>> 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.

    >
    > Can't you take my word for it?
    >


    No.

    > Do you think MSO has value for businesses?


    I'd say so -- Microsoft Office is the world standard for office document
    creation.

    >If so, then surely OO can have
    > exactly the same value as they do pretty similar things.


    Right, like a Lada does pretty much the same thing as a BMW.

    > If you don't think
    > that OO can have value for a business, then you are pretty much admitting
    > that MSO cannot either.


    No, I'm not.

    > And the respective prices of those products is
    > irrelevant other than the lower the price, the lower the cost for
    > business.
    >


    Does the word "quality" ring a bell?

    >>>>>>> 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.

    >
    > Do you admit that office suites have value for businesses? If not, why do
    > they use them?
    >


    Judging by market share, only one office suite really seems to have any
    value for business -- Microsoft Office.

    >>>>>>> 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?

    >
    > Nix? What is "nix"? I would hazard a guess to say that OO is used more on
    > MS
    > Windows than on any other platform.
    >
    > So I ask again (just in case I get a sensible answer this time) - why so
    > you
    > think so many organisations use OO if it has no value to them?
    >


    So many organisations? What? All 20 of them?

    >>>>>>>>>>> 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/utilities/wordprocessors.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?

    >
    > You refute that you can use the Google service for free? Are you serious?
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>> 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/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_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.

    >
    > Yes? No?
    >


    Go find another thread to peddle your ideology. The topic here is market
    value, and OO has none.

    >>>>>>> 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.

    >
    > Google is giving away access to its searching application. You can I can
    > perform searches on Google for no cost. I have never paid them a penny,
    > yet
    > have used them for thousands of searches.
    >


    That's the busines model. Users pay nothing, advertisers pay to attract
    customers.

    > Google is giving away access to their service for free. FREE. Just like OO
    > is free.
    >


    No. Google is a business. It makes money by selling targeted ads.
    OpenOffice.org is not a business -- it gives away its product for nothing
    with no expectations of receiving any income whatsoever.

    >> 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.

    >
    > Do you pay Google when you do a search using them? Sounds "free" to me.
    >


    Do advertisers pay Google or not? That's the business.

    >>>>>>>> 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.

    >
    > The price of the operating system bear no relevance to the value it adds
    > to
    > my business. It lets me do the things I need to do. It provides me huge
    > value to my business because without an operating system I wouldn't be
    > able
    > to do business.
    >
    >> If you think it
    >> does, I fear for your clients.

    >
    > If I think it does? The arrogance is outsanding. I am telling you here and
    > now that the tools I use provide a value for my business. If they did not,
    > I would not use them. Some of those tools happen to be free, some of them
    > do not. Got it?
    > --


    Whatever you say, Allistar. I think we're done here.
     
    impossible, Nov 11, 2008
    #11
  12. impossible

    aspir8or Guest

    On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:59:09 +1300, impossible propped his eyelids open
    with
    toothpicks and wrote:

    <biiiiiiiiig snip>

    So OO has no market value? Consider this.

    You and I are in competing businesses. You pay ~$1000 for MSO, I pay
    nothing for OO. You either try and recover the cost of MSO by increasing
    your prices, or absorb the cost in lieu of profit. I can sell my
    competing product for less because I don't have to recover that cost. I
    sell more because my prices are lower.

    Does that satisfy your definition of market value? Because it sure as hell
    satisfies mine and I'm sure would satisfy any business person's
    definition.

    I'll spell it out very simply for you.

    Lower cost = better profit.

    One of the fundamentals of doing business.





    --
    Rob
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I...
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     
    aspir8or, Nov 11, 2008
    #12
  13. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "aspir8or" <> wrote in message
    news:gfbc8s$4d6$...
    > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:59:09 +1300, impossible propped his eyelids open
    > with
    > toothpicks and wrote:
    >
    > <biiiiiiiiig snip>
    >
    > So OO has no market value? Consider this.
    >
    > You and I are in competing businesses. You pay ~$1000 for MSO, I pay
    > nothing for OO. You either try and recover the cost of MSO by increasing
    > your prices, or absorb the cost in lieu of profit. I can sell my
    > competing product for less because I don't have to recover that cost. I
    > sell more because my prices are lower.
    >
    > Does that satisfy your definition of market value?


    No, that has nothing to do with market value.

    > Because it sure as hell satisfies mine and I'm sure would satisfy any
    > business person's
    > definition.
    >


    I feel a simple-minded aphorism coming on... let's see:

    > I'll spell it out very simply for you.
    >
    > Lower cost = better profit.
    >
    > One of the fundamentals of doing business.
    >


    Still, nothing to do with market value.
     
    impossible, Nov 11, 2008
    #13
  14. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>> 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".
    >>>
    >>> The ability to minimise costs and maximise profits is definitely a
    >>> driver
    >>> for business. To suggest otherwise is crazy.
    >>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Customers aren't interested in business costs, but the businesses
    >>> themselves
    >>> sure are.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I repeat, reducing costs is a matter of prudence, but it does not drive
    >> business -- innovating, adding value, and winning customers drives
    >> business. And for that you need talented people and productive tools.
    >> Both
    >> tend to cost real money precisely because both are in great demand in a
    >> competitive market.

    >
    > There are a lot of productive tools that do not cost anything. Why that
    > fact
    > escapes you I don't understand.
    >
    >> I gather you have little need for either talent or
    >> productivity in your chosen line of work, but others have a different
    >> perspective.

    >
    > Keep the personal abuse out of this eh? It certainly is puerile.
    >
    >>>>>>>>> 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**.
    >>>
    >>> Are you saying to me that out of the hundreds of thousands of users of
    >>> OO, not one of them (other than me) find that it helps their business?

    >>
    >> Are you saying to me that among these "hundreds of thousands" you can't
    >> name even a handful of the businesses you claim are using OO?

    >
    > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
    >


    > (Courtesy of Google, another productivity tool I use for free).


    <shakes head> That's the same list I posted for your benefit two days ago.
    Almost entiurely a bunch of city goverenment bodies. Still can't find any
    businesses, can you? Didn't think so.

    If you're going to use Google, invest in a course so that you can learn to
    use it intelligently. That's often one of the hidden costs involved in
    adopting free tools, but in your case it would probably pay.

    > Now back to the question: do you think OO has value to the organisations
    > listed on that page?
    >


    Now, back to the question:

    Are you saying to me that among the "hundreds of thousands" of OO downloads
    you rave about, you can't name even a handful of businesses using that
    product?

    >>>>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Your definition of "market value" was spurious and ill-defined at best.
    >>> It has value in the market. But that's not what you call "market value.

    >>
    >> My definition of market value is crystal clear and fully in line with
    >> standard economic analysis. Yours is sheer gibberish.

    >
    > I have given no definition of "market value". I have stated that OO has
    > value to many businesses.
    >


    That and 4 dollars or so will get you a decent cup of coffee.Or...what's the
    price of birdseed nowadays?

    >>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Be a good boy and just admit that OO has value for businesses.

    >
    > No?
    >
    >>>>>>>>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>> I don't know, I don't use a clunky 120Mb office suite, so I couldn't
    >>> say.

    >>
    >> Blind faith is a dangerous thing in business. Haven't you at least run
    >> some rough numbers?
    >>
    >>> But until you know the nature of my business, the thousands of expense
    >>> lines, the tax exempt invoices and other income - I don't think you are
    >>> in a position to say what calculations are involved to calculate my GST.
    >>> It's more than a simple multiplication. I've already said that using OO
    >>> probably
    >>> saves my $1500 a year in time alone.

    >>
    >> And yet it hasn't allowed you to do a proper financial analysis of
    >> anything. You're simply guessing that OO is saving you money because it
    >> costs you nothing up front to stick it on your computer. Why kind of
    >> businessman are you?

    >
    > I'm guessing how much time using it has saved me than if I used pen and
    > paper. How about keeping this discussion in the realms of civility and not
    > let it descend into childish personal abuse? Are you capable of that?
    >


    If you think doing a proper financial evaluation of your business
    investments is childish, then...oh, well.

    >>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Can't you take my word for it?

    >>
    >> No.

    >
    > Are you saying I am lying when I say OO has value for my business?
    >


    I'm saying you are ignorant of the true facts because you have never done a
    proper financial accounting of the real costs and benefits. You are working
    on intuition, "feel", gut instinct. good luck with that.

    >>> Do you think MSO has value for businesses?

    >>
    >> I'd say so -- Microsoft Office is the world standard for office document
    >> creation.

    >
    > If MSO has value for businesses, then why can you not accept that OO does?
    > Especially in the face of someone unequivicolly stating that it does?
    >
    >>>If so, then surely OO can have
    >>> exactly the same value as they do pretty similar things.

    >>
    >> Right, like a Lada does pretty much the same thing as a BMW.

    >
    > ?? You seem to be on a crusade against free tools. Is that so?
    >
    > Face the fact: OO has value for many organisations. Why would they use it
    > otherwise?
    >


    A handful of city governement bodies is "many organisations"?

    >>> If you don't think
    >>> that OO can have value for a business, then you are pretty much
    >>> admitting
    >>> that MSO cannot either.

    >>
    >> No, I'm not.

    >
    > Both tools are comparable. Surely the value of these two tools in not in
    > the
    > difference between them!?
    >


    That's **exactly** the difference.

    >>> And the respective prices of those products is
    >>> irrelevant other than the lower the price, the lower the cost for
    >>> business.

    >>
    >> Does the word "quality" ring a bell?

    >
    > It sure does, and personally I trust the quality of OO. You may not and
    > that
    > is your prerogative. But it's pretty audacious to suggest that it's not
    > possible for any business to get value out of using OO. Why do so many use
    > it if that's the case?
    >


    Not many actually do. That helps to explain OO's low market valuation.

    >>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Do you admit that office suites have value for businesses? If not, why
    >>> do
    >>> they use them?

    >>
    >> Judging by market share, only one office suite really seems to have any
    >> value for business -- Microsoft Office.

    >
    > You can't judge the value of a product by it's market share. You can't say
    > that a product that doesn't have a majority of market share cannot have
    > any
    > value for anyone. That's absurd.
    >


    Yes, that would be absurd, and I never said that.

    >>>>>>>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>> Nix? What is "nix"? I would hazard a guess to say that OO is used more
    >>> on
    >>> MS
    >>> Windows than on any other platform.
    >>>
    >>> So I ask again (just in case I get a sensible answer this time) - why so
    >>> you
    >>> think so many organisations use OO if it has no value to them?

    >>
    >> So many organisations? What? All 20 of them?

    >
    > It's much more than that - see the link I posted previously.
    >


    I posted the link originally. What's the real number? (I can't be bothered
    counting.) 30?

    > But just to humour you, let's assume it was just 20. Why would they use it
    > if it had no value for them?
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/utilities/wordprocessors.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?
    >>>
    >>> You refute that you can use the Google service for free? Are you
    >>> serious?

    >
    > Eh? Are you refuting that you can use the Google service for free?
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_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.
    >>>
    >>> Yes? No?

    >>
    >> Go find another thread to peddle your ideology. The topic here is market
    >> value, and OO has none.

    >
    > It has value in the market. That is evident by the fact that businesses
    > use
    > it. Using it improves the bottom line of their business. I',m not peddling
    > any ideology here - I'm stating that OO (and other free tools) have value
    > to the people and organisations that use them. Do you refute that?
    >
    >>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Google is giving away access to its searching application. You can I can
    >>> perform searches on Google for no cost. I have never paid them a penny,
    >>> yet
    >>> have used them for thousands of searches.

    >>
    >> That's the busines model. Users pay nothing, advertisers pay to attract
    >> customers.

    >
    > Yes - it's a free tool. A free tool with a huge market.
    >
    >>> Google is giving away access to their service for free. FREE. Just like
    >>> OO is free.

    >>
    >> No. Google is a business. It makes money by selling targeted ads.

    >
    > Yes. By giving away something for free.
    >
    >> OpenOffice.org is not a business -- it gives away its product for nothing
    >> with no expectations of receiving any income whatsoever.

    >
    > OpenOffice.org is sponsored by many organisation that use it to save
    > costs.
    > Therefore it has value to those businesses.
    >
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Do you pay Google when you do a search using them? Sounds "free" to me.

    >>
    >> Do advertisers pay Google or not? That's the business.

    >
    > Do *you* pay Google when you do a search using them?
    >
    >>>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> The price of the operating system bear no relevance to the value it adds
    >>> to
    >>> my business. It lets me do the things I need to do. It provides me huge
    >>> value to my business because without an operating system I wouldn't be
    >>> able
    >>> to do business.
    >>>
    >>>> If you think it
    >>>> does, I fear for your clients.
    >>>
    >>> If I think it does? The arrogance is outsanding. I am telling you here
    >>> and now that the tools I use provide a value for my business. If they
    >>> did
    >>> not, I would not use them. Some of those tools happen to be free, some
    >>> of
    >>> them do not. Got it?
    >>> --

    >>
    >> Whatever you say, Allistar. I think we're done here.

    >
    > Seems to be that way. Always interesting debating with the stubborn and
    > the
    > blind.
    >
    > Face it: many free tools have huge value to many businesses.
    >
    > Take LAMP installations: a very large chunk of the web is driven by them.
    > Are you going to tell me that these free tools have no market either?
    > Snigger! Really!?
    > --


    Your needle's stuck, Allistar.
     
    impossible, Nov 11, 2008
    #14
  15. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>google


    >>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>> 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".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The ability to minimise costs and maximise profits is definitely a
    >>>>> driver
    >>>>> for business. To suggest otherwise is crazy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Customers aren't interested in business costs, but the businesses
    >>>>> themselves
    >>>>> sure are.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I repeat, reducing costs is a matter of prudence, but it does not drive
    >>>> business -- innovating, adding value, and winning customers drives
    >>>> business. And for that you need talented people and productive tools.
    >>>> Both
    >>>> tend to cost real money precisely because both are in great demand in a
    >>>> competitive market.
    >>>
    >>> There are a lot of productive tools that do not cost anything. Why that
    >>> fact
    >>> escapes you I don't understand.
    >>>
    >>>> I gather you have little need for either talent or
    >>>> productivity in your chosen line of work, but others have a different
    >>>> perspective.
    >>>
    >>> Keep the personal abuse out of this eh? It certainly is puerile.
    >>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> 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**.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are you saying to me that out of the hundreds of thousands of users of
    >>>>> OO, not one of them (other than me) find that it helps their business?
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you saying to me that among these "hundreds of thousands" you can't
    >>>> name even a handful of the businesses you claim are using OO?
    >>>
    >>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
    >>>

    >>
    >>> (Courtesy of Google, another productivity tool I use for free).

    >>
    >> <shakes head> That's the same list I posted for your benefit two days
    >> ago.
    >> Almost entiurely a bunch of city goverenment bodies. Still can't find any
    >> businesses, can you? Didn't think so.

    >
    > Business, local governments. What's the difference? Why do you think they
    > have choose OO over any alternatives?
    >
    > How about this?
    >
    > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Market_Share_Analysis
    >
    > Sun have over 30,000 seats for OO.
    > Everex has over 35,000. Novell: over 4,000. Bank of Brazil: 35,000.
    > Peugeot:
    > 20,000. The list goes on.
    >


    That's showing combined deployments of OO and Sun's proprietary (and
    defintely not free) Star Office. If only you could tell which was which
    where...but I'm guessing Sun's 30,000 are Sun Star Office. Novell? Well they
    bundle OO with Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop -- it would look pretty bad for
    them to not install OO on their own machines...but only 4000 at that,, and
    apparently all installed on dual-boot machines running Windows and MSO
    <http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=397A879F-C1BB-4CBE-A8A4-633DE1B25200>.
    That leaves you with Banco do Brasil. Ok!!

    > Why are they using OO if it provides them no value?
    >
    >> If you're going to use Google, invest in a course so that you can learn
    >> to
    >> use it intelligently. That's often one of the hidden costs involved in
    >> adopting free tools, but in your case it would probably pay.

    >
    > More puerile abuse. How mature.
    >


    Got something against taking a class? You obviously don't know how to use
    Google search effectively -- I just thought it might help. So sue me!

    >>> Now back to the question: do you think OO has value to the organisations
    >>> listed on that page?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Now, back to the question:
    >>
    >> Are you saying to me that among the "hundreds of thousands" of OO
    >> downloads you rave about, you can't name even a handful of businesses
    >> using that product?

    >
    > I've named them, and there are more. You know how to use Google, so why
    > don't find your own information out for yourself?
    >


    Done that -- exposed your lame claim. Now what?

    >>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Your definition of "market value" was spurious and ill-defined at
    >>>>> best.
    >>>>> It has value in the market. But that's not what you call "market
    >>>>> value.
    >>>>
    >>>> My definition of market value is crystal clear and fully in line with
    >>>> standard economic analysis. Yours is sheer gibberish.
    >>>
    >>> I have given no definition of "market value". I have stated that OO has
    >>> value to many businesses.

    >>
    >> That and 4 dollars or so will get you a decent cup of coffee.Or...what's
    >> the price of birdseed nowadays?

    >
    > What are you on about? You're making absolutely no sense.
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Be a good boy and just admit that OO has value for businesses.
    >>>
    >>> No?

    >
    > Hmmm?
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't know, I don't use a clunky 120Mb office suite, so I couldn't
    >>>>> say.
    >>>>
    >>>> Blind faith is a dangerous thing in business. Haven't you at least run
    >>>> some rough numbers?
    >>>>
    >>>>> But until you know the nature of my business, the thousands of expense
    >>>>> lines, the tax exempt invoices and other income - I don't think you
    >>>>> are
    >>>>> in a position to say what calculations are involved to calculate my
    >>>>> GST. It's more than a simple multiplication. I've already said that
    >>>>> using OO probably
    >>>>> saves my $1500 a year in time alone.
    >>>>
    >>>> And yet it hasn't allowed you to do a proper financial analysis of
    >>>> anything. You're simply guessing that OO is saving you money because it
    >>>> costs you nothing up front to stick it on your computer. Why kind of
    >>>> businessman are you?
    >>>
    >>> I'm guessing how much time using it has saved me than if I used pen and
    >>> paper. How about keeping this discussion in the realms of civility and
    >>> not let it descend into childish personal abuse? Are you capable of
    >>> that?

    >>
    >> If you think doing a proper financial evaluation of your business
    >> investments is childish, then...oh, well.

    >
    > I think you've lost the ability to have an reasonable discussion. I've
    > given
    > you an example of why OO has value for me.
    >
    > Another one: I do a lot of documentation for my clients. I do this using a
    > completely free software stack. Doing this documentation is valuable to my
    > business, hence the software I use to do it is valuable to my business.
    >


    Good for you. But that doesn't increase the market value of OO, which
    remains zero.

    >>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can't you take my word for it?
    >>>>
    >>>> No.
    >>>
    >>> Are you saying I am lying when I say OO has value for my business?

    >>
    >> I'm saying you are ignorant of the true facts because you have never done
    >> a proper financial accounting of the real costs and benefits. You are
    >> working on intuition, "feel", gut instinct. good luck with that.

    >
    > Ignorant of the true facts? About my business and the software I use in
    > it?
    > Who would know more about that other than me?
    >


    You may be a fine developer, Allistar, but you're clearly not much of a
    businessman. A businessman doesn't get emotionally attached to the idea of
    creating a Microsoft-free zone in his office, they way you have. A
    businessman doesn't mistake his personal opinion about the worth of things
    for the cold, hard reality of market valuation.

    > And take my word for it - the free tools I have have immense value for my
    > business.
    >


    Only "immense value"? Why not fantasmagoric value? I mean a
    hundred-billion-trillion times zero surely can't be too much value to
    squeeze out of a piece of software, can it?

    >>>>> Do you think MSO has value for businesses?
    >>>>
    >>>> I'd say so -- Microsoft Office is the world standard for office
    >>>> document
    >>>> creation.
    >>>
    >>> If MSO has value for businesses, then why can you not accept that OO
    >>> does? Especially in the face of someone unequivicolly stating that it
    >>> does?

    >
    > Yes? No?
    >
    >>>>>If so, then surely OO can have
    >>>>> exactly the same value as they do pretty similar things.
    >>>>
    >>>> Right, like a Lada does pretty much the same thing as a BMW.
    >>>
    >>> ?? You seem to be on a crusade against free tools. Is that so?
    >>>
    >>> Face the fact: OO has value for many organisations. Why would they use
    >>> it
    >>> otherwise?

    >>
    >> A handful of city governement bodies is "many organisations"?

    >
    > You're still avoiding the question.
    >
    > Why would these organisations use OO is it had no value for them?
    >
    > Here's a hint:
    >
    > http://opendocument.xml.org/node/153
    >
    > Banco de Brazil has OO installed on more than 71,000 workstations.
    >
    > --Start Quote--
    > According to Vilson Carlos Pastro, Manager of the Open Source Center, "the
    > implementation of the open source software solution has provided to the
    > Banco do Brasil new functionalities, hardware beneficies utilization,
    > costs
    > reduction, and has rendered independency from software providers.
    > --End Quote--
    >
    > Sounds like that business sees huge value in OO.
    >


    Too bad for you, they never mentioned market value. Nor "immense value" of
    any sort. Oh, well, at least in this case your constant lobbying for
    government intervention to, ahem, "encourage"" companies to use open-source
    software seems to have paid off. Well, "paid off" is probably too strong...I
    mean, the OO earns no profit, after all. But you know what I mean. Maybe
    this is why you'd prefer not to discuss market value. Because you don't
    really believe in markets?

    >>>>> If you don't think
    >>>>> that OO can have value for a business, then you are pretty much
    >>>>> admitting
    >>>>> that MSO cannot either.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, I'm not.
    >>>
    >>> Both tools are comparable. Surely the value of these two tools in not in
    >>> the
    >>> difference between them!?
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's **exactly** the difference.

    >
    > Oh dear. Are you telling me that "OO cannot provide any value to
    > businesses"? Just a simple yes or no would suffice.
    >


    You're (mis)quoting yourself, and asking me to respond with 'a simple yes or
    no'? Time you took a nap, I think.

    >>>>> And the respective prices of those products is
    >>>>> irrelevant other than the lower the price, the lower the cost for
    >>>>> business.
    >>>>
    >>>> Does the word "quality" ring a bell?
    >>>
    >>> It sure does, and personally I trust the quality of OO. You may not and
    >>> that
    >>> is your prerogative. But it's pretty audacious to suggest that it's not
    >>> possible for any business to get value out of using OO. Why do so many
    >>> use it if that's the case?

    >>
    >> Not many actually do. That helps to explain OO's low market valuation.

    >
    > Of those that do, why do they use it if it provides their organisations no
    > value?
    >


    Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I guess.

    >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do you admit that office suites have value for businesses? If not, why
    >>>>> do
    >>>>> they use them?
    >>>>
    >>>> Judging by market share, only one office suite really seems to have any
    >>>> value for business -- Microsoft Office.
    >>>
    >>> You can't judge the value of a product by it's market share. You can't
    >>> say that a product that doesn't have a majority of market share cannot
    >>> have any
    >>> value for anyone. That's absurd.

    >>
    >> Yes, that would be absurd, and I never said that.

    >
    > Yet you still think that OO has no value to businesses?
    >


    Not one bit, no. Buit then my opinion is as good as yours, isn't we? I
    suppose we could just let the market settle this dispute....oh, wait, it
    already has.

    >>>>>>>>>>> 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?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Nix? What is "nix"? I would hazard a guess to say that OO is used more
    >>>>> on
    >>>>> MS
    >>>>> Windows than on any other platform.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So I ask again (just in case I get a sensible answer this time) - why
    >>>>> so you
    >>>>> think so many organisations use OO if it has no value to them?
    >>>>
    >>>> So many organisations? What? All 20 of them?
    >>>
    >>> It's much more than that - see the link I posted previously.

    >>
    >> I posted the link originally. What's the real number? (I can't be
    >> bothered
    >> counting.) 30?
    >>
    >>> But just to humour you, let's assume it was just 20. Why would they use
    >>> it if it had no value for them?

    >
    > Sigh. It's a pretty simple question really.
    >
    >


    Ok, let me think...20 users out of hundreds of millions....hmmm.... and
    almost all of them government bodies....let's see....I'm guessing that it
    has something to do with budget cuts. And 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/utilities/wordprocessors.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?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You refute that you can use the Google service for free? Are you
    >>>>> serious?
    >>>
    >>> Eh? Are you refuting that you can use the Google service for free?

    >
    > Can you, or can you not use the Google service for free? Avoiding the
    > questions that undermine your position does nothing for your integrity.
    >


    Don't tell me you've deleted my answer from 3 days ago already!

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes? No?
    >>>>
    >>>> Go find another thread to peddle your ideology. The topic here is
    >>>> market
    >>>> value, and OO has none.
    >>>
    >>> It has value in the market. That is evident by the fact that businesses
    >>> use
    >>> it. Using it improves the bottom line of their business. I',m not
    >>> peddling any ideology here - I'm stating that OO (and other free tools)
    >>> have value to the people and organisations that use them. Do you refute
    >>> that?

    >
    > Do you refute that, or do you agree with it?
    >


    Repute or agree with what?

    >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Google is giving away access to its searching application. You can I
    >>>>> can perform searches on Google for no cost. I have never paid them a
    >>>>> penny, yet
    >>>>> have used them for thousands of searches.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's the busines model. Users pay nothing, advertisers pay to attract
    >>>> customers.
    >>>
    >>> Yes - it's a free tool. A free tool with a huge market.
    >>>
    >>>>> Google is giving away access to their service for free. FREE. Just
    >>>>> like
    >>>>> OO is free.
    >>>>
    >>>> No. Google is a business. It makes money by selling targeted ads.
    >>>
    >>> Yes. By giving away something for free.
    >>>
    >>>> OpenOffice.org is not a business -- it gives away its product for
    >>>> nothing with no expectations of receiving any income whatsoever.
    >>>
    >>> OpenOffice.org is sponsored by many organisation that use it to save
    >>> costs.
    >>> Therefore it has value to those businesses.

    >
    > Agreed? Disagreed?
    >


    Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But the market says OO is worthless.

    >>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do you pay Google when you do a search using them? Sounds "free" to
    >>>>> me.
    >>>>
    >>>> Do advertisers pay Google or not? That's the business.
    >>>
    >>> Do *you* pay Google when you do a search using them?

    >
    > Do you?
    >


    You've been checkmated on the Google issue, Allistar. Lets' not pretend that
    your bluster is going to get you anywhere now. Walk away.

    >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The price of the operating system bear no relevance to the value it
    >>>>> adds to
    >>>>> my business. It lets me do the things I need to do. It provides me
    >>>>> huge
    >>>>> value to my business because without an operating system I wouldn't be
    >>>>> able
    >>>>> to do business.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> If you think it
    >>>>>> does, I fear for your clients.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If I think it does? The arrogance is outsanding. I am telling you here
    >>>>> and now that the tools I use provide a value for my business. If they
    >>>>> did
    >>>>> not, I would not use them. Some of those tools happen to be free, some
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> them do not. Got it?
    >>>>> --
    >>>>
    >>>> Whatever you say, Allistar. I think we're done here.
    >>>
    >>> Seems to be that way. Always interesting debating with the stubborn and
    >>> the
    >>> blind.
    >>>
    >>> Face it: many free tools have huge value to many businesses.
    >>>
    >>> Take LAMP installations: a very large chunk of the web is driven by
    >>> them.
    >>> Are you going to tell me that these free tools have no market either?
    >>> Snigger! Really!?
    >>> --

    >>
    >> Your needle's stuck, Allistar.

    >
    > Are you going to tell me that free tools such as the LAMP software stack
    > have no market just because they are free?
    > --


    Yes.
     
    impossible, Nov 12, 2008
    #15
  16. impossible

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Same old same old. Was: Re: Open source valuations remain birdseed

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Allistar wrote:
    > impossible wrote:


    [snip]

    Wow! 27KB of uncircumcised bitchfest!

    When oh when is someone going to propose nz.os-wars?
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 18, 2008
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?U2FuZHNMb3Zl?=

    problem securin network, adjustments don't remain

    =?Utf-8?B?U2FuZHNMb3Zl?=, Feb 26, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,787
    =?Utf-8?B?U2FuZHNMb3Zl?=
    Feb 27, 2006
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open-Source Good, Closed-Source Bad

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    514
    Gordon
    Oct 16, 2005
  3. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Open Doors to Open Source

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Apr 9, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    540
    Jerry
    Apr 11, 2006
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Closed-Source vs Open-Source Drivers

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 4, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    555
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 5, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open Source vs Closed Source Security

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 3, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,047
    Gordon
    Mar 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page