I know this isn’t a one-to-one comparison, but there’s an interesting discrepancy in how HN views free-to-use products.
In this situation, there is a prevailing attitude of “You are not paying for this, so you are not entitled to fixes or support. Any suggestion otherwise is entitlement on your part. I don’t care that you’ve grown to rely on this service. Pay me or figure it out yourself.”
When it came to Gitlab considering deleting old free-tier repos, however, people were incensed and insisted that there is an obligation to continue providing free service for users.
Similarly, with Gmail and YouTube, people often invoke the argument of “this is people’s lives and livelihoods, so of course there is an obligation to provide fixes and support.”
So is the difference here that one endeavor is done for profit and the other isn’t? If an open source project becomes profitable for the maintainers, do they now have a obligation to fix and support their software?
> So is the difference here that one endeavor is done for profit and the other isn’t? If an open source project becomes profitable for the maintainers, do they now have a obligation to fix and support their software?
Yes, doesn't that seems reasonable? Presumably Gitlab became as popular as it did only because they offered free-tier repos, and generated revenue another way. YouTube only became popular because they offered free content and generated revenue another way, and so on.
Suppose you managed to start a company with a couple of loyal customers, and then as you grow bigger you ignore those loyal customers' needs in deference to newer customers that pay more. Maybe it's "good business" to pursue more profit, but kind of shitty to spit in your original customers' faces no?
The article makes no allowance for things like loyalty or obligation.
In this framework, if you don’t like how Gitlab, YouTube, or Gmail is treating you, then you can use a competitor, build your own replacement, or suck it up.
> The article makes no allowance for things like loyalty or obligation.
No such obligation to users exists in open source. The open source developer is his own customer. At best, you could argue there's a reciprocal duty to your fellow contributors, but I don't see how you can extend that any further.
By contrast, Gitlab and YouTube only became profitable because of the free contributions from others, and your views that YouTube monetized, so in fairness it seems like there should be some reciprocal duty there.
You're uncovering this visceral reaction to paying for things people use or want and expecting people to do things on their behalf that only benefit them.
Also the free rider problem.
Also examples of the 1% rule and Pareto principle where most value must be produced by a very small number of people and used by lots of people.
In this situation, there is a prevailing attitude of “You are not paying for this, so you are not entitled to fixes or support. Any suggestion otherwise is entitlement on your part. I don’t care that you’ve grown to rely on this service. Pay me or figure it out yourself.”
When it came to Gitlab considering deleting old free-tier repos, however, people were incensed and insisted that there is an obligation to continue providing free service for users.
Similarly, with Gmail and YouTube, people often invoke the argument of “this is people’s lives and livelihoods, so of course there is an obligation to provide fixes and support.”
So is the difference here that one endeavor is done for profit and the other isn’t? If an open source project becomes profitable for the maintainers, do they now have a obligation to fix and support their software?