As an IT manager, I would be pissed if someone came to me with leverage.
I've never understood this sentiment although I've heard it many times from my father who was a manager for a large part of his career. Why is it okay for management to come to me and say, "We've got some problems with our relationship and, if you don't make some changes, you'll be fired.", but it isn't okay for me to go to management and say, "We've got some problems with our relationship and, if you don't make some changes, I'm going to quit."? Most of the time, management is in a superior bargaining position because it's harder for me to do without a job for a period of time than it is for them to do without someone in my position for a period of time. Would you, as a manager, be reluctant to use that advantage to bring an employ into line with a new set of job requirements that you or senior management felt were necessary?
"What does a software developer know about editing movies?"
If he's spent years developing software for doing it - probably quite a lot. After I spent ten years developing software for a home health company, I knew at least as much about the industry and our specific approach to it as most of the managers who used the software that I developed.
In what other business do people get to take your money and then tell you what you are getting?
Almost any business that sells information follows this model, e.g. the publishing and movie industries. You may have some idea of what you're going to get but you don't get full disclosure until after you've opened your wallet.
But I don't think that's what you meant. I think you meant, "In what other business do people get to take your money and then tell you the terms under which you can use the product?" I'll admit that that's a strange way to do business but the author of the article isn't even telling his customers the terms after they've got the product. He's just assuming that they're going to know and agree with his position.
Link to Original Source