[CoachKandSportsguy]

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

Free is deflationary, there is no other answer.
Deflationary is bad for assets, by definition. . .

There is/are no moat/s around software creation, and the race towards software value destruction continues. .

Will software replace humanity? LOL!
just pull the plug, remove all apps from your phone, remove the smart

but can you?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

Free is deflationary, there is no other answer.
Deflationary is bad for assets, by definition. . .

There is/are no moat/s around software creation, and the race towards software value destruction continues. .

Will software replace humanity? LOL!
just pull the plug, remove all apps from your phone, remove the smart

but can you?

I may be misunderstanding your comments but it appears you are arguing for less use of technology. Wouldn't this be the same as saying backhoes are great but they put a lot of ditch diggers out of work or vaccines prevent illnesses but result in lower utilization of hospital beds?

"Free" software is rarely free, it typically comes with advertisements, in-app purchases, or performs better/best only with an upgrade to the next version of hardware. People hate the ads but will often go out of their way to avoid paying a subscription fee.

"Free" software is often is more like free samples of software. Microsoft 365 now comes with Copilot - or rather, it comes with a limited number of Copilot uses per month with an option to pay a fee for more access. So it is "free" until usage reaches a certain point and then it comes with a price.

Again, I may have missed your point, but to me it doesn't look like "free" software is really free. While "free" software does drive up usage, that usage is frequently tied to production of additional revenue.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I may be misunderstanding your comments but it appears you are arguing for less use of technology. Wouldn't this be the same as saying backhoes are great but they put a lot of ditch diggers out of work or vaccines prevent illnesses but result in lower utilization of hospital beds?

"Free" software is rarely free, it typically comes with advertisements, in-app purchases, or performs better/best only with an upgrade to the next version of hardware. People hate the ads but will often go out of their way to avoid paying a subscription fee.

"Free" software is often is more like free samples of software. Microsoft 365 now comes with Copilot - or rather, it comes with a limited number of Copilot uses per month with an option to pay a fee for more access. So it is "free" until usage reaches a certain point and then it comes with a price.

Again, I may have missed your point, but to me it doesn't look like "free" software is really free. While "free" software does drive up usage, that usage is frequently tied to production of additional revenue.

I use LibreOffice. It's completely free. It's open source, just like millions of other open source software programs in the world. The group that created it is a non-prof and they accept donations. If you want a "business version" then yes there's a license fee for that. But the home version is 100% free and functions exactly the same way Microsoft Office Suite for Home works (although better, in my opinion).

[FloridaGuy66]

Former software developer here with 30+ years experience.

The whole business model for software has drastically changed over the past 25 years. People aren't walking into a store and buying software off the shelf like in the 90's.

Software isn't free just because the end-user didn't have to pay for it directly out of pocket.

Apps with ads are an obvious example.

Apps like MS Office are now using a software-as-a-service model where the user has to pay monthly or yearly for a full featured software suite.

Google provides apps like Maps for free, but they also collect data on things like traffic patterns that they can sell to the DOT at a lower cost and with better accuracy than a traffic study being commissioned.

The cost to produce software is also MUCH lower than ever. The time required to build an app that might have taken a year or longer in the early 2000's could likely be built in 4 weeks now and with less skilled people.

The cost of software decreasing was inevitable but the demand has increased dramatically as almost everyone has a smartphone now and many have apps built into their vehicle. So yes, Jenvon's paradox has seemed to hold up over the test of time, although to me this paradox just seems more like common sense.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by FloridaGuy66

Former software developer here with 30+ years experience.

The whole business model for software has drastically changed over the past 25 years. People aren't walking into a store and buying software off the shelf like in the 90's.

Software isn't free just because the end-user didn't have to pay for it directly out of pocket.

Apps with ads are an obvious example.

Apps like MS Office are now using a software-as-a-service model where the user has to pay monthly or yearly for a full featured software suite.

Google provides apps like Maps for free, but they also collect data on things like traffic patterns that they can sell to the DOT at a lower cost and with better accuracy than a traffic study being commissioned.

The cost to produce software is also MUCH lower than ever. The time required to build an app that might have taken a year or longer in the early 2000's could likely be built in 4 weeks now and with less skilled people.

The cost of software decreasing was inevitable but the demand has increased dramatically as almost everyone has a smartphone now and many have apps built into their vehicle. So yes, Jenvon's paradox has seemed to hold up over the test of time, although to me this paradox just seems more like common sense.

There are no ads or nag-screens with LibreOffice. I also have the free version of CCleaner and I see a nag screen a couple times per YEAR inviting me to upgrade and get a discount if I do, or a free 3-month trial (which I usually get, and then cancel right before it expires).

My HP Smart software is 100% completely free.

I use ad blockers, and so I don't see ads on my google searches UNLESS I'm running a search specifically for ads (like if I'm shopping for something).

I use MUSHClient for gaming, and it has zero ads, and zero nag screens.

Even my Facebook webpage has no ads or sponsored posts, because I use FBP to block them. While FBP accepts donations, it is 100% completely free, if you don't want to contribute financially.

Firefox has no ads.

All of these (except Facebook on my computer, which is just a website loaded from my browser) are ad-free, and free to use.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

Free is deflationary, there is no other answer.
Deflationary is bad for assets, by definition. . .

There is/are no moat/s around software creation, and the race towards software value destruction continues. .

Will software replace humanity? LOL!
just pull the plug, remove all apps from your phone, remove the smart

but can you?

Deflation for assets may be BAD from the perspective of the OWNER of those assets, but deflation is GOOD from the perspective of the BUYER of those assets. Ying and Yang strike again. Like the stock market - for every buyer there must be a seller to make a transaction. When the buyer(s) are more interested in buying than the seller(s) are interested in selling -- the price drifts upward until both parties are happy - ideally.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

Free is deflationary, there is no other answer.
Deflationary is bad for assets, by definition. . .

There is/are no moat/s around software creation, and the race towards software value destruction continues. .

Will software replace humanity? LOL!
just pull the plug, remove all apps from your phone, remove the smart

but can you?

I am NOT completely sure what the point of the topic starter is except the Jevon's paradox, which was interesting. My opinion is that OVER TIME that the paradox will go away and go back to regular supply and demand. But the later question of "Will software replace humanity?" It comes close to another variation of that which I consider important - is the design of the software very sneaky (insidious) to keep (almost force) young (controllable) minds to consume TOO MUCH social media. We all know about the increased suicide rate for teenage girls.That is a SOCIAL COST that the social media OWNERS are NOT paying. The answer, ultimately, is for the governments of the world to do a better job of regulation in the future. I hope that my question did NOT stray too far from the original point of the topic.

[gorillarick]

"Deflation for assets may be BAD from the perspective of the OWNER of those assets, but deflation is GOOD from the perspective of the BUYER of those assets. Ying and Yang strike again. Like the stock market - for every buyer there must be a seller to make a transaction. When the buyer(s) are more interested in buying than the seller(s) are interested in selling -- the price drifts upward until both parties are happy - ideally."

Bad for the economy. Simple; everyone stands around with their hands in their pockets waiting for the price to drop further.