Hacker News Reader

Comment by eucyclos | Hacker News Reader

I think they mean cost of incremental units. 0->1 is much more expensive than 1->100 in software, unlike with things like lattes or houses

View on HN

I assumed that they meant "cost of production", since that's what you give to keep your money, so that includes 0->1. But if what they meant is what you said then I'd say that the cost of 0->1 is not somehow less important. Software does make 1->100 much more accessible though, so, in that way, you have an opportunity to help out very small businesses in a way that you can't in other industries, which is even more of a reason to buy code from your peers, IMO.

On the one hand, I agree and wish more people would pay for useful code. Hell, I wish I would be more willing to pay for useful code. It's irrational how unwilling many people, including myself, are to pay for things like that.

On the other hand, you wouldn't download a car...

I think the comparison to other industries is that while they pay for tools, it's not the inventor of the hammer that gets paid, but the producer of the unit, which in software is ~0. I'm not arguing against paying/donating to FOSS, but I do support the discrete distinction to physical tools.

If the tool is saving you a large chunk of time, then why does it matter what's happening in another industry? We seem to be losing a really simple thread here: Pay for things because they present more value to you than you're giving away in payment.

Y'all seem to have some notion of what constitutes "fair" payment that you're so attached to that you're willing to shoot yourselves in the foot.

Yeah, "manufacturing" is a different step than "R&D"

Definition one on Merriam Webster is, "To make into a product suitable for use." This is what I thought you meant, because cost of production is what it costs to forego buying something. IMO, that's the cost you really want to consider.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com