I'm thinking about the NYT link breakage some more. I decried that it wasn't a good decision for its customers. Wait a second. Are web readers customers? No they aren't. They weren't paying for that privilege.
Now, take that to the "free software world." Guess what, when that world decides to do something, you have no voice. Why? Because you aren't a customer. You can't make a "giant sucking sound" as you take your money and go elsewhere.
The NYT (and Knight Ridder before it) didn't care about screwing us, because we simply were not customers and were not helping to pay the bills. Journalism is expensive. They decided to turn off the free tap. I wonder when the software industry is going to make the same decision?
[The Scobleizer Weblog]
This is why I think software should be charged for - based upon the end-user's behavior and usage patterns.
If they simply dabble with the software, aren't dependent upon it or relish it - then DON'T expect them to pay. None of this 30 day free trial stuff.
But as soon as they become dependent upon the functionality, fun or community aspects of the software - then it's a reasonable time to charge for it. That might be on a monthly basis, yearly or flat rate - one time charge. It's also reasonable to think that super-users will arise - those vocal proponents and advocates who start making demands for features.
THOSE folks can get charged even more! I bet there are a LOT of those kind of Radio users. I bet they'd pay $100 or more for advanced versions of Radio - that the rest of us wouldn't even care about not receiving.
This is all part of the trend to have software and technology bend over and serve the users, rather than vice versa. God bless Don Norman.