In an article for Time, Anita Hamilton has suggested that iPhone software should be available for free, and that developers should place ads in that software to make money off of it, instead of "just selling" their programs.

Like many other commenters, Paul Kafasis is "not amused" over this piece, and says so in no uncertain terms on our Inside iPhone blog (don't miss to read the two articles that Paul links to in his post!).

Hmmm, wouldn't that make a neat topic for a poll, I wonder?

J.

P.S.: Have I missed an option? Please let me know, and I'll add it in.

I wonder how long Anita thinks it takes to write a decent application? What if you write the perfect app for an audience that hates ads or a large app for a narrow niche? Good luck making a living via ad income under those circumstances. I suspect her presumption is along the lines of, it's just software, it can't be difficult to do. I underestimate the complexity of the things I do know about (like writing software), let alone the things I know little about.

This is one of those false choices; ad-supported software and paid software should both exist. If done tastefully, both should succeed.

As several commenters point out, perhaps Time magazine should be "free" as well...though I suppose the online version is.

The parallel with magazines goes further: a lot of commercial software is seemingly sold on a subscription basis, with expensive, near-compulsory updates churned out annually.

On a related note, I've used Eudora in sponsored mode for years. Several months ago, ads stopped appearing, although the gray ad window remains. At one point, though, I experimented with writing an AppleScript that would flip new ad images upside-down as soon as they downloaded. Never got that working.

That may, in fact, be one of the reasons why commenters attacked Miss Hamilton's article so vehemently: namely, that she is only in support of the ad-based model and does not seem to see that ad-based and pay-up-front can happily live side by side.

More recent case in point: IconFactory's Twitter client Twitterific: which you can buy for $14.95 or use for free with the occasional advertisement showing up seamlessly (yet clearly identifiable as an ad, mind you) in your stream of tweets, and they have even adopted that model for their iPhone app, too, which is available in free and for-pay "Premium" versions.

J.

As an end-user, much of the software I use has become too expensive. I understand that as it grows, it becomes more complex. But its also like buying bigger and bigger houses to the point that we can't afford them anymore and then we have a national mortgage crisis and wonder why.

Is supplementing this Koyaanisqatsi lifestyle with ads the answer? We're talking software here, not neon signs in the front yard....but hey, now that's an idea!

Its all a matter of balance (between development costs and functionality needed by end-users). In the early days of computing, my hardware and software costs were about the same. Today, my software easily costs 10-20 times my hardware cost (making the venerable Mac vs PC argument moot). Sure, I can do more, but I'm not making 10-20 times more money.

In the end, something has to give - although I don't think slowing the workforce down to a Joe six-pack-TV-ad lifestyle is the answer. Ads in leisure space are one thing, in the workspace, I think they are a dangerous mistake.

Can you give an example for what kind of software you mean?

Looking at audio software, for example, I think the opposite trend is true. Just take Logic Studio: right now, the price-performance ratio of that specific audio production software package has never been better. Back when Emagic was still an independent developer, many of the plug-ins like the EVP 88 electric piano or the ES-2 softsynth had to be purchased separately, and the core software itself was still about twice as expensive as it is now. Sans plug-ins, that is.

Then again, I don't even want to think about what it would be like if you're working on a music track in Logic and an ad would pop-up, reminding you to, say, stock up on cheese pretzels. There goes the creative flow...

Yup, ads in the realm of professional software (usage) would, indeed, be a dangerous, productivity-crushing mistake.

Audio sample software in particular has become extremely expensive on the high-end with VSL's Super Package topping out at just over $20,000. And if you lose your dongle, - you simply buy it again. OK, not a good example you think? (although these samples the the staple of many pro musicians). Take VSL's "cheap" package, the SE edition. Its only $1,635 for me today.....tomorrow my price goes up to $2,235 as VSL is eliminating discounts to its previously loyal customers. Hey, business is business, and its their right to name a price.

Another example of "cost" for musicians is closed-system software. Samples typically used to be accessible whereas today for the most part, they are in locked monolithic volumes. This doesn't affect most musicians unless they have a desire to tinker with the samples to make tweaks or adjustments - no more can do! Sure, you could record the sample itself, but you can't then place your own edited sample back into the program. That's a tremendous hidden cost. Plus, there's another loss and hidden cost. With dongle-locked monolithic samples, you lose your protection in the event of a company failure. And surely if banks can fail, so can audio companies. Without the company to authorize your dongle, or upgrade the software for a new computer OS version, you'd lose your entire investment - not to mention all the time you've invested in it. Now imagine a similar scenario with a classical violinist's Strad suddenly disappearing as a result of Stradivarius going out of business! Absurd huh? Well, that's a realitiy for today's musicians. And in some cases, such as the Garritan Strad, the product was pulled from the market. The existance of this virtual instrument in the real-world was just about one year whereas its realworld counterpart has been around for centuries. That the musician is at the mercy of the software developer to this extent seems to be at a rather extreme cost to the musician. One day your instrument's available, the next day its not!

I could go on and on, but one last example, I'd like to point out is Adobe Software. My immediate family owns three suites. My wife, son and I each require our own Suites. And the way they've "cleverly" packaged the $1,800 "Production Suite" I don't have basic functionality such as Adobe Acrobat or Dreamweaver. Adobe decided to "kill" Adobe Go Live which I used to use so now I have to upgrade to the $400 Dreamweaver. I must give them credit for returning Premiere back to the Mac (and selling it to me again in the Suite), although I have already spent $1,200 switching over to Apple Final Cut Pro.....can you see how those clever marketing MBA's have driven up my end-user cost?

Another case in point:

Tascam ceases development of GIGA Studio.

The ultimate cost of this developers decision will have a very high price for end-users over time in terms of both price and functionality. Its very sad to see an open platform system such as GIGA replaced by multiple proprietary locked systems from each sample developer.

Gregory:

the software I had in mind was entry- to mid-level applications like, say, Sequel or GarageBand, that, IMHO, offer a lot of value for money, but also the massive reduction in price for Logic that I mentioned earlier.

When it comes to high-end sample packages, I'm afraid you're absolutely right (same applies to the Adobe examples).

As for lock-in, though: would you say that this criticism only applies to the monolithic products that you've mentioned, or would also you consider sample CDs/DVDs supporting formats like EXS24 or NI Kontakt Player a "lock-in" risk," because of these formats being proprietary, even though some of them provide full access to the actual samples themselves?