No, it's the same writing that frames piracy as "costing" money to the developers. If something costs you some money there's the implication that you had the money, and then you didn't have it after that something happening. As much as they'd like to believe it, projected earnings aren't money you actually have
back
2 comments
> No, it's the same writing that frames piracy as "costing" money to the developers.
I hope you're not referring to me. I never once said anything about Google losing money. I merely asked the question, would they gain or lose given a scenario.
I didn't state anything.
I'd say that the piracy does cost developers something. Not every pirated copy is a lost sale, but there are some number of people who are capable of buying software that instead choose to pirate it for any number of reasons and would buy it if piracy was not an option.
I wouldn't say it's a high percentage, but it's not insignificant.
I'd count that as a lost sale.
But I do agree that this is a different situation. This is just a high profile application that has decided to forgo something completely optional.
> I'd count that as a lost sale.
It's a lost sale, but that's still not a cost. It's just money they never got. If it had actually cost them, then I'd expect it would take away money they previously had, like I say lunch costs me $15 because after the transaction I'm down $15 (but up a lunch).
At best, it's akin to opportunity cost.