What article did *you* read?
> This point was made in the first few paragraphs, then there are 10 bullet points specifically pointing at Microsoft. they are the only non open-source software house out there? Even just throwing in a simple Mac, Red Hat, or Fedora comparison would be great. I have plenty of facts; however, that is not the point of this article. The point is not even relavent to Microsoft, example as possible a singular example. If users are willing to pay more for non proprietary software, what does the majority of software we encouter still come from closed-source shops? If there are so many failures from closed-source shops, then why are even more closed off devices and application marketplaces becoming popular? Just an observation, not an opinion. If one wants to rely on entirely open-sourced products, may times from download to use, there are many hops in between. closed-sourced development attempts to provide a product that is ready to go, at at for the end user. Not entirely a true statement 100% of the time, I'll admit. Show me how the 'pay as you please' business model actually stimulates individual company growth better than fixed price.
How can the article do that without discussing the shortcomings of Microsoft's fixed price model relative to the "pay what you like" model from the statistical example? You evidently want the article to discuss the relative merits of the "pay what you like" model while pretending the fixed price model employed by Microsoft doesn't exist, because you (for some reason) are offended by the fact it addresses Microsoft's business model.
