Do Open Source / Free Software alternatives lower your willingness to pay (WTP)?

For many proprietary programs there are OSS/FS alternatives. Has the option to use these alternative programs lowered your personal willingness to pay for proprietary software?

Definitely, I would always look for alternative free softwares first. Even if the free software might not be as user friendly as the original proprietary one, I will endure it as long as it gets the job done. My last resort if I cannot find a replacement software will be to purchase the proprietary software.

I can say that OSS/FS alternatives didn't lower my personnal willingness to pay for prorietary software. For me, the way I perceive the usefullness of the software is the most important factor; price only comes in second.
Besides, sometimes I have the feeling that if a software is free it won't be as complete as a proprietary software.
I experienced that with a Chinese dictionnary, when I started to learn Chinese, I downloaded a FS but I wasn't really satisfied with it, a lot a words were missing, it was not easy to use etc.
After that I bought a software called Pleco dict; although it was quite expensive, I was willing to pay for that because I considered it very usefull for my studies, and so it is ;-) I'm really satisfied with this software and as I bought it five years ago and continue to use it today, I think it was a good investment ;-)

So I guess that you have a lot of programmes like that on your computer? can you give a few examples?

Also for many OSS vs. PS combats, individual consumers do not pay for the PS directly, such as MS Office in this study. It's the intitution that individual users associated with pays for the PS. Hence, OSS may not be able to outbeat PS in terms of price. Other factors have to be considered.

I think I'll try to have the OSS/FS software if the job I want done with it is very specific (one single job for a particular homework for example). But if I need to use it on a regular basis, I probably would not mind buying the propietary software. I will just do what is the most convenient for me.

One of the factor to consider using PS is knowing that there is always customer support. I don't know if that would be quite true for OSS.

In my opinion, a free OSS/FS alternative first inevitably lower your WTP, as you are thinking of a program having the same characteristics and applications but then, you might change your mind if you discover the OSS/FS actually doesn't offer the same customer service, ease to use and so on. Anyway, i think the simple fact that OSS/FS exists as an alternative program, even if people doesn't buy it, makes one's WTP decrease.

I think Prof. Huang is right, many OSS / PS combats are indirect fights. But still, e.g. if I buy a computer that comes with Windows, I have to pay for the software, too. It might come bundled, but in my opinion people get more and more aware that "bundled" means they still have to pay for it.

Moreover, small applications become more important. Dictionaries, as Chloé mentioned are a good example. People in the future probably want the dictionary not only on their computer but also on their mobile phone. Especially in the market for specialized software with few functions, there often exist open source solutions. And I believe, in this case, many people really prefer the OSS solution and their willingness to pay for proprietary software has lowered. However, for their main operating system and most important programs they still would pay a high price to get a high reliability, compatibility and customer service. Do you agree?

I paid for official licenses of:
MacOS (bundled), Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Flash, MS Office, Parallels Desktop, some specialized small tools

I use the following OSS:
Open Office (more than MS Office), Firefox, Linux (for web Servers), and some more small tools (most importantly "Cyberduck", a FTP /SFTP client for mac)

i agree with you it depends as it is mentioned in the case on an important factor which is: the usefulness of the software . I think that OSS/FS is another alternative for people who doesn't need many features in their applications whereas advanced users will tend to buy proprietary softwares for specific use

of course, the OSS/ FS alternatives will be my first choice but if the proprietary programs can guarantee an higher value and an extreme flexibibility with existing and other supported modules I will reconsider my first choice.

I can only speak for myself, but in a case like here, where studens get their MS Office package free from school (same as me, I dowloaded my office from NTU), it's reasonable to assume they won't start looking for some other OSS. Once I could get my Office package for free, I preffered to use it, since I'm already familiar with this program, it's compatible with what all the other students are using, mostly reliable - than why should I go for trouble of finding some OSS that I'm not familiar than and is probably less reliable? The transition costs are too high.
If, on the other hand, I would have had to pay a full price to get MS Office, I would definitely think of using an OSS alternative instead.

Once again, it depends of the type of programs we are talking about.
For programs we use to work, for example with people with which we need compatibility, or for graphic creation where you need a lot of options , the WTP won't change.
But for programs which are just your concern, like media player of Internet browsers, I think that people will always search for free - and they are good ones ! (e.g. Firefox or VLC) - alternatives.

I think in response to this question it is one of those, "depends" on certain situations. I think perhaps maybe when it comes to OS, I want something dependable and that has the name, purely for the fact there might be maintenance or customer support that is superior.

But when it comes to softwares, it just depends on reliability...and basically if my computer is just going to become a virus hub.

cheers

I think that my wtp on a scale from 0 to ten would be approximately 1.
We live in a technological world, and can get almost everything for free. Even MS Office can be found for free on the internet (for those who got good skills, which is not my case but you always can ask one of your friend to get it).
When around you everybody is talking about what they can get for free, why would you pay? Nobody really cares now about the licence, we just wan to use the programs we like. But why should we pay? (i mean i know why, but would you rather get a program for 50 euros or for free?)

Florent_Blanchard wrote:I think that my wtp on a scale from 0 to ten would be approximately 1.
We live in a technological world, and can get almost everything for free. Even MS Office can be found for free on the internet (for those who got good skills, which is not my case but you always can ask one of your friend to get it).
When around you everybody is talking about what they can get for free, why would you pay? Nobody really cares now about the licence, we just wan to use the programs we like. But why should we pay? (i mean i know why, but would you rather get a program for 50 euros or for free?)

But you are aware of the fact that getting this programme for free is considered to be a crime? There is someone who cares about the license - these are companies that make the product:P

I guess this is the place where ethics become quite an important issue. And we may argue whether it is right or wrong for the companies to charge so much for the products. But place yourself on their lace: you put a lot of effort in making a product, you had great costs, but now no-one wants to buy it but instead they illegally copy it. How would you feel? what would you try to do?

I think OSS/FS will acutely decrease my willingness to pay for PS.
Because there are more and more OSS/FS providing equivalent or even better functionality. Why do I have to buy PS?

I totally agree, i would be totally pissed off and would try to find some solutions to avoid that.
But you have to live with your time and with people from your generation...
Of course ethic is really important and like 100 percent of people here i respect a lot of stuffs and could shout on somebody who would not act right.
But come on, concerning the licence and technology, nobody sees it as a crime, and few sees it as a delict. And i am not the one doing the biggest crime, i am using others who could do it without getting punished.
It is the only crime as you said where less than 0,0001 percent of bad people are arrested. We did grow up with that, and this will hardly change (and you know i am right, even if it is a pity)

Felix_Humbaire wrote:Once again, it depends of the type of programs we are talking about.
For programs we use to work, for example with people with which we need compatibility, or for graphic creation where you need a lot of options , the WTP won't change.
But for programs which are just your concern, like media player of Internet browsers, I think that people will always search for free - and they are good ones ! (e.g. Firefox or VLC) - alternatives.

I have to agree with Felix on this, it depends on the type of program that is needed. The WTP won't change if you are using the programs at a job. When it comes to business WTP is not an issue. Customers not only seek products according to price but also according to value. For me price isn't the most important when buying a product, quality is what i look for.

That's true. I can't agree more.
But I think I will still pay for anti-virus software coz there is no substitute for it.

TA_Max_Huang wrote:I think OSS/FS will acutely decrease my willingness to pay for PS.
Because there are more and more OSS/FS providing equivalent or even better functionality. Why do I have to buy PS?

I think it depends of the funtionality and using of the software I need. This means, if the OSS/FS is really a perfect substitute of the PS, I will chose for sure an OSS/FS and my WTP will decrease.

But if the OSS/FS is not a perfect substitute of the PS, then maybe my WTP won't decrease in almost nothing. On this decision it's very important the network externality, too.

For sure I would go for the OS/FS for an instance that will be pay less or no money to obtain a good software according to my needs, if the product that is been offered free is not good for me I would rather pay and get something useful, functional, and that I will definitly will use.

Because if the OS/FS products are easy to get but they do not satisfy my needs as a consumer I will be willing to pay to get a copyright software.

tobias_off wrote:For many proprietary programs there are OSS/FS alternatives. Has the option to use these alternative programs lowered your personal willingness to pay for proprietary software?

Many of you have already made several relevant points, which I will try not to repeat myself. One of the most important points I have seen is that the presence of OSS/FS itself indicates a consequent lower price for paid software. This is because software, being a knowledge and information good, does not have any replication costs. So, why pay when that knowledge and information is being provided on a voluntary basis by a catalaxy of minds all over, rather than 20 people on a payroll?

Personally, I do believe in the power of OpenSource and Collaboration. It often happens that proprietary software are far overpriced (as in the case of most MS stuff), and susceptible to virus attacks (see Jeffery's comment, I think he was referring to IE) and numerous bugs. Most of the time, as people already said, it depends on functionality - but it so happens that because the market is mainly monopolised by MS, the drawbacks of OSS/FS dont lie so much in technical details, but in compatibility issues. While we are on the topic of Online Software - it is not common knowledge that web developers have to develop pages with two versions (one that is compatible with Non-SVG, CSS and XHTML styles for IE) to ensure accessibility. In essence, IE has consistently blocked the W3C from developing OpenSource platforms and apps, in a medievial and intolerant fashion.

For all these reasons, proprietary software (especially linked to MS) has been given a bad name, sometimes rather unfairly. Has the option to use these alternative programs lowered my personal willingness to pay for proprietary software? Definitely YES. However, because of the acts of proprietary software companies, we are FORCED to continue paying (through bundling, predatatory tactics, lawsuits, copyright restrictions, etc etc) for substandard software. It is arguable that the presence of OpenSource might have actually hindered progress towards developing a good product on the part of MS - had they focussed their energies on innovation rather than protection, we might still be using IE today.

On a concluding note, it is important to realise the benefits of endorsing OSS/FS instead of continuing our subservience to MS. On the other hand, it is worth paying for actually good niche softwares (dictionaries, finiancial software, other specialised products by Oracle, etc) when required, provided they are not overpriced. Therefore, I would argue that OSS/FS does not threaten prorprietary software companies - it just ups their game!

As for IE and MS, just use Firefox and pray Norton works, or switch to a Mac.

tobias_off wrote:For many proprietary programs there are OSS/FS alternatives. Has the option to use these alternative programs lowered your personal willingness to pay for proprietary software?

For me, it will not lower my willingness to pay for proprietary software. The presence of Linux for example, does not lower my willingness to pay for Windows, because for me Windows has more value. It has less compatibilty issues for example.