The title might strike you as a bit odd. However, do bear with me for a while; soon you'll understand why I'm asking that.
See, water is a non-scarce resource. It's wholly possible that, from the time someone puts a pipe inside a river, the water flows indefinitely without further expense. One could go ahead and take 10, 100, 1000 litres and (assuming that the pipe's capacity isn't maxed out) the next person that goes there will have no problem getting the water s/he needs.
It follows that, if people were only interested in saving money, they could just go to the river and take some for themselves. Or, if their morals were lax, they could abuse the already-existing infrastructure, and break a pipe to divert water to their homes.
Of course, no-one does that. People in ancient Rome did it, but not nowadays. The reasons ought to be obvious:
1) Tap water is of high quality
2) It's incomparably more convenient
3) It helps support the people who work to bring you your water
4) You can take as much or as little as you like and
5) You can get your water without needing to pay beforehand.
(Some reasons might strike you as odd. But, again, bear with me.)
Now, imagine you lived in a place where, if you want to get some water, you have to pay before-hand; no opening the tap now and paying your monthly bill later on. All companies sell bottled water; one or two have home delivery, while others need hours of driving to get to, so you have to go out of your way to reach their store, and pay inflated prices for it. Plus, their bottles come with some really annoying caps that need a special tool to open, which they give you when you buy from them. And... outside your house is a river.
What would you do in such a case? The amount you bought might vary, but everyone (and I do mean *everyone*) would get water from the river at least part of the time. It's much more convenient! And, on the rare occasions that you want some water which you're sure won't make you sick, you could go through the effort of getting those silly bottles.
In case you didn't notice, the above paragraph was an extended analogy for the software market nowadays.
I first read that simile in a blog; I remember the blog's name being "rethink copyright", but googling that phrase gave me no results. Anyway, they ran their mouths and keyboards about how people would get their water from untapped springs if given their chance, and that's why people copy software as well. And, at some point, it dawned on me: that's not what happens. Instead, people pay for water, and quite happily too, in exchange for the advantages outlined above.
So, what would a tap-water-model look like for software? Steam is the closest thing we currently have, but it's still a ways from achieving it fully. For one, we'd have to get rid of the "pay before enjoying" restriction. Secondly, we'd have to get rid of the "pay all or pay nothing" restriction. So, imagine this:
You fire up Hydroxane, your gaming program. You see a new game that strikes your fancy.
You press "install and play" and the program does exactly that, really swiftly, installing the first levels so you can play, and downloading more of them as you do. (No DRM, obviously.) You play for 10 minutes, or 1 hour, or something to that extent, then you realise you don't really like it that much. So you uninstall it. At the end of the month, the program sees that you only played for 10 or 60 minutes, and bills you accordingly, for an amount that's much less than the price of the full game.
The next day, you find a game that you really like. 3 hours pass by in a flash. Hydroxane pops up a notification: "Hey there! Would you like to pay the rest of the price to buy the game forever, or would you like to keep paying as you play?" From there, you choose the option that's most convenient for you.
Torrenting? Psh, who has time for that? You can sample the game so conveniently, cheaply, safely and remorselessly! Why download the entire game at once, and risk catching a virus in the process?
The day that the software industry (or, why not... the digital entertainment industry in its entirety?) adopts the tap-water model might still be far away. However, until that day, it will remain a neat example of how people can pay for non-scarce products and still enjoy it.
See, water is a non-scarce resource. It's wholly possible that, from the time someone puts a pipe inside a river, the water flows indefinitely without further expense. One could go ahead and take 10, 100, 1000 litres and (assuming that the pipe's capacity isn't maxed out) the next person that goes there will have no problem getting the water s/he needs.
It follows that, if people were only interested in saving money, they could just go to the river and take some for themselves. Or, if their morals were lax, they could abuse the already-existing infrastructure, and break a pipe to divert water to their homes.
Of course, no-one does that. People in ancient Rome did it, but not nowadays. The reasons ought to be obvious:
1) Tap water is of high quality
2) It's incomparably more convenient
3) It helps support the people who work to bring you your water
4) You can take as much or as little as you like and
5) You can get your water without needing to pay beforehand.
(Some reasons might strike you as odd. But, again, bear with me.)
Now, imagine you lived in a place where, if you want to get some water, you have to pay before-hand; no opening the tap now and paying your monthly bill later on. All companies sell bottled water; one or two have home delivery, while others need hours of driving to get to, so you have to go out of your way to reach their store, and pay inflated prices for it. Plus, their bottles come with some really annoying caps that need a special tool to open, which they give you when you buy from them. And... outside your house is a river.
What would you do in such a case? The amount you bought might vary, but everyone (and I do mean *everyone*) would get water from the river at least part of the time. It's much more convenient! And, on the rare occasions that you want some water which you're sure won't make you sick, you could go through the effort of getting those silly bottles.
In case you didn't notice, the above paragraph was an extended analogy for the software market nowadays.
I first read that simile in a blog; I remember the blog's name being "rethink copyright", but googling that phrase gave me no results. Anyway, they ran their mouths and keyboards about how people would get their water from untapped springs if given their chance, and that's why people copy software as well. And, at some point, it dawned on me: that's not what happens. Instead, people pay for water, and quite happily too, in exchange for the advantages outlined above.
So, what would a tap-water-model look like for software? Steam is the closest thing we currently have, but it's still a ways from achieving it fully. For one, we'd have to get rid of the "pay before enjoying" restriction. Secondly, we'd have to get rid of the "pay all or pay nothing" restriction. So, imagine this:
You fire up Hydroxane, your gaming program. You see a new game that strikes your fancy.
You press "install and play" and the program does exactly that, really swiftly, installing the first levels so you can play, and downloading more of them as you do. (No DRM, obviously.) You play for 10 minutes, or 1 hour, or something to that extent, then you realise you don't really like it that much. So you uninstall it. At the end of the month, the program sees that you only played for 10 or 60 minutes, and bills you accordingly, for an amount that's much less than the price of the full game.
The next day, you find a game that you really like. 3 hours pass by in a flash. Hydroxane pops up a notification: "Hey there! Would you like to pay the rest of the price to buy the game forever, or would you like to keep paying as you play?" From there, you choose the option that's most convenient for you.
Torrenting? Psh, who has time for that? You can sample the game so conveniently, cheaply, safely and remorselessly! Why download the entire game at once, and risk catching a virus in the process?
The day that the software industry (or, why not... the digital entertainment industry in its entirety?) adopts the tap-water model might still be far away. However, until that day, it will remain a neat example of how people can pay for non-scarce products and still enjoy it.
