Lessons Proprietary Software Can Teach Open Source

cdlu writes "Kris Shaffer at Newsforge argues that just because software is open source doesn't mean it should be unpopular. What lessons, he asks, can open source projects learn from popular proprietary software?" From the article: "In the absence of a monopoly, there are three traits that are likely to make an application popular: it is cool or attractive in some way, it provides easy entry, and it is addictive. Barring these things, most average users will stick with the status quo. In fact, many users never use a program on their computer that did not come pre-installed. However, by creating an attractive, easy to set up, addictive application, a developer can motivate the average user to break this barrier and try something new. And several such applications can generate strong popular interest in the open source movement in general."

It's no Analogy

[uberdave]

It's [media-culture.org.au] not a metaphor. Many people exhibit symptoms of adictive behaviour towards their computers.

The problem actually is...

[Anonymous Coward]

that most open source projects are made by self prclaimed experts in software design that do NOT understand the common computer user.

When I attempted to upgrade my workplace to OpenOffice after fielding complaints about Microsoft Office -- suffice to say we are back to Microsoft.

NEVER underestimate the value of user friendly GUI's and software design. Then again...

OSS fallicy number 1

[banzai51]

Barring these things, most average users will stick with the status quo. In fact, many users never use a program on their computer that did not come pre-installed.

I call bullshit. From corporate environments to my most technophobe friends and family this is just not true. No how many times you try and make this your mantra for MS dominance, it just isn't true. Make a compelling piece of software, and the masses will use it as long as you make it easy to use.

Re:Marketing and Religion.

[theMerovingian]

That analogy is a bit of a stretch... With closed source or open source software, the user can be happy with either experience. For example, I'm glad to pay $49.95 and $15 a month for World of Warcraft. Based on my enjoyment of the game and the hourly cost of playing, that provides a good value to me. I'm personally very glad that the creators can make a living doing something they are so good at.

By the same token, there is nothing wrong with Christianity simply because there are preachers who go around talking about Jesus. I've met several individuals in the ministry who represented Jesus very well with their lives and with their words. I'm a better person for having known them. Simply because they are involved in the ministry doesn't make them salesmen...

Re:Open source needs slickness and simplicity

[Effugas]

VLC's by far the least arcane of the MPlayer/Xine/VLC trinity. It's also the best way to get a DVD player on Windows (install, put in disc, right click on disc from my computer "play in vlc").

--Dan

Open source 'wow' value

[Anonymous Coward]

How about 3D Desktop?

http://desk3d.sourceforge.net/screenshots.php

Now if only I could get the @#$*%! thing working on my Gentoo box.

Re:Or it could just be useful

[LWATCDR]

Really I just ried it from firefox and IE and both worked.
BTW yes I have managed to crash Office.

Re:Get the job done.

[drinkypoo]

Look at winamp - it was no better than the alternatives at playing mp3s, but while it had skins and WMP didn't, it was huge.

I think you're wrong. Winamp WAS better than the alternatives at playing MP3s, especially because it is small, fast, extensible (and frequently extended, even back in the day) and takes little resources. Oh, and it's skinnable. That's a nice side benefit but the fact is that it was the best mp3 player around back in the day and it still is in most ways.

The primary competition for Winamp was sonique, which was VERY slow and crashy. The interface was extremely pretty (it supported shaped skins LONG before winamp did) but it was also extremely slow.