Yeah see it’s super solid logic – if someone explains something then they LOVE it. They fully embrace the way that it is and WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY FOREVER. Explanations really can only be traced back to evil intent.
It is not free. It takes a ton of time to build and maintain this software. And people including myself do donate to help out.
If you’re thinking all software developers will switch philosophies suddenly to think like you, I don’t really know what to tell you other than that will absolutely never happen.
Ps. Did you really think there was a chance you needed to remind me Lemmy is not commercial software?
Pps. I typically use boost to view Lemmy and that is commercial software. Showing there is no need to expect everyone to develop all software for free. $3 was a fuckin bargain
It is not free. It takes a ton of time to build and maintain this software.
labor value != commodity value
If you’re thinking all software developers will switch philosophies suddenly to think like you, I don’t really know what to tell you other than that will absolutely never happen.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise, it is simply incorrect to say the consumer always pays for an application. There are many apps and software that is free to use and modify, and you do not always pay with your time or your privacy.
Ps. Did you really think there was a chance you needed to remind me Lemmy is not commercial software?
It was a convenient counterexample to the point being made.
Pps. I typically use boost to view Lemmy and that is commercial software. Showing there is no need to expect everyone to develop all software for free. $3 was a fuckin bargain
Yeah see it’s super solid logic – if someone explains something then they LOVE it. They fully embrace the way that it is and WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY FOREVER. Explanations really can only be traced back to evil intent.
“You either pay for an app with money or with privacy” is just factually incorrect
There are lots of apps that do not require you to pay for with either your privacy or your currency.
Example: you are using an open-sourced application right now that is both free and private.
It is not free. It takes a ton of time to build and maintain this software. And people including myself do donate to help out.
If you’re thinking all software developers will switch philosophies suddenly to think like you, I don’t really know what to tell you other than that will absolutely never happen.
Ps. Did you really think there was a chance you needed to remind me Lemmy is not commercial software?
Pps. I typically use boost to view Lemmy and that is commercial software. Showing there is no need to expect everyone to develop all software for free. $3 was a fuckin bargain
labor value != commodity value
Nobody is suggesting otherwise, it is simply incorrect to say the consumer always pays for an application. There are many apps and software that is free to use and modify, and you do not always pay with your time or your privacy.
It was a convenient counterexample to the point being made.
Yup, but Lemmy itself is free to use or adapt.
Well no, it wasn’t. The original point is that is Google’s business model. Not that this business model is inevitable in every case.
Lmao, idk bud I think you’re reading words that aren’t there.
It goes without saying that Google made it. If you somehow didn’t know that, it was all over the thread.
You’re making the assumption here if anyone. “that app” does not mean “all apps, period”