Who will pay for software?

In one of his "DaveNets", Dave Winer expresses doubt about whether people will pay for software, music or anything else on the net, and concludes that they won't.


He has some good points to make, but I think he's projecting the fact that people may not be willing to pay for his software into a conclusion that people won't pay for software at all. No, they won't pay for software that's very buggy, and for which the company does not offer professional level support. No, they're not going to do business with a company that doesn't respond to customers' inquiries or complaints, and that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people to pay.

For instance, on Userland's order page for Radio it states: "We also accept checks, purchase orders, and wire transfers at an additional charge." Why is there a different price for people who don't wish to pay by credit card? It doesn't cost any more for them to process. (Actually it's less; there's no percentage taken out by the credit card company.)

But that's not the real point, which is that when I (twice) emailed them to find out what the cost was if I paid by check I never even received a response. No wonder people aren't buying it. I have since purchased both Radio Userland as well as a Manila site from Weblogger, a separate company that offers Manila hosting, mostly because I'm interested in the technology and wanted to check it out. I've since found that the software is so buggy and the customer support so poor that I simply can't rely on it. The HTML in the templates is the sloppiest I've ever seen.

So I'm writing this blog using Blogger. Not as many features, and it has its own problems, but it works. It's so much easier to use than Radio there's just no comparison. That's probably why Google bought Pyra, not Radio Userland. I'll probably soon move to Movable Type, since it seems that it's a good product, and that the people behind it are focused on making it work.

I see no problem with people paying for software or music or anything else. If the quality is good, and the company offers good service. I don't want to be critical of Dave, who's done a lot for blogging and the computer industry. But these claims that people don't pay make it more difficult for others who do good products.

I also have to question the claim that "our economy is based on software." I don't think so, and I'm surprised that since the dot-com crash people continue to make this claim. Software is just a tool used by other industries. It's not an end in itself, and it really isn't all that important to the economy.

Actually, the arts (film, music, writing, etc.) are much more important to the economy now. He also says that our culture is based on software. I don't think so. It's the stars of the art world that lead the culture now. Amazon is making money by selling the products of writers. Apple's major recent success is in selling music. It's the movies AOL Time Warner makes that now subsidize AOL, not the other way around. Without the artists who create these products these people are out of business.

Addendum: Dave adds more thoughts on the subject. He says there's been some discussion on his piece, but I notice he doesn't link to any of it. Curious.

I still don't think his arguments hold much water. He claims that software costs money to produce, and that people aren't paying. But if that is true, then how is that the web continues to exist? How is it that I'm able to post this very comment. Obviously, the system is working somehow. The folks behind Blogger _must_ be making some money, or why would a big company like Google buy it???

---