Why Web Developers Should Consider Paying for Tools

> [...] However, most OSS software is limited in what is offered.

Unlike paid software, which is not limited. Yeah, sure.

> Transparency Does Not Equal Support

On the other hand, paid support does not mean you'll get any meaningful support at all, and often means the opposite. With open source you know where you stand and at least can help yourself, because you can look into source code.

> You can’t depend on the kindness of strangers to be there to work with you on a bug or question like a paid tool provider.

If the company you bought/licensed tool from is a big one, their support typically sucks. If it's a small one, you can't reliably expect their team to be experienced enough for most non-typical issues you'll hit.

> Areas Where Paid Support Matters Most

> * Guaranteed Support

A.k.a. butt-cushion if anything goes awry. Very limited protection if "goes awry" means "total catastrophe", and you'll need to wait for support's reaction instead of throwing everything you have at the problem.

> * Reputation. What exactly will you tell a client who has just paid you good money to create a product, only to find out you don’t use professional tools?

That it doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the product, not the quality of the tools used to build it. And if "professional tools" means here "paid tools", then I've seen enough of them to strongly prefer "hobbyst tool" or "shop-made tool" over "professional" any time.

> * Code Quality. Not all OSS is created with a large budget, or any budget at all.

As an industry we've already seen that code quality is not correlated with large budget.

> * Licensing. When using OSS, there are specific rules. Users must comply with license terms depending upon which components you’re using. When you choose a paid tool, the vendor license agreement has you covered.

You mean OSS doesn't have license agreement? Funny.