The "It's free" Argument Needs to Stop
My name is Eddy, I've had a writer's account on TekSocial for a while now, but this is my first post. Why is this? Simply because I've felt no need to post anything. Whenever a topic comes up that everybody is interested in, someone else makes a post that accurately describes my feelings on the subject, so it'd be pretty superfluous for me to make another post saying the same thing. However, something has recently caught my attention and I feel the need to write about it. I warn you, I'm not a strong writer at all. I'm very surprised David approved my request to be a writer in the first place. However, this is something I need to get off of my chest. If you aren't afraid of a little bit of rambling, then read on.
Things on the internet change. Where there is change, there are people fighting and debating over it. Some people oppose all change, claiming: "It's not as good as the original, this is awful!". Others defend such changes; they speak of all the improvements made, and ask that more time be given before a final judgment is passed. However, one argument in the defense of change always flips my angry switch, it's the biggest cop-out argument in my opinion:
"It's a free service, so why are you complaining?"
God that bugs me.
Just because something is free, doesn't mean it shouldn't be held to a set of standards. Perhaps these standards should be a tad more lenient than a paid product, but just because something is free doesn't give it a pass to be bad. If a product or service has shown itself to be capable of greatness, why shouldn't it be permissible if people feel the change is a detriment? Because a service is free, that makes it immune to criticism? Without critiques, there would never be any improvements made. Why then is it such a problem to be harsh on a company or provider for making a negative change to its product, simply because it is free? And I don't mean harsh in terms of angry (Facebook) haters crying: "I HATE CHANGE! ALL CHANGE BAD! GRAGHGH!" If being forceful in an argument is what it takes for a company to listen, why not be forceful?
People who use the free argument, especially when features get removed from a product, often claim "We should be thankful for what we have!". In some cases I find this permissible, such as when removing a feature because of cost. Obviously this is understandable, as companies can't run off of well wishes alone. However, when this argument is utilized over something such as a UI changes, where there is not cost to actually have it, this statement is completely ridiculous. Why be thankful when something positive is removed? It's not as if the change was necessary, so why not be upset that I lost a feature of a product when there is no reason it couldn't be included in the new version? Was it truly a necessary change, or could other steps be taken to keep features?
If you defend changes in products, that's fine. Just don't claim that change is okay simply because we weren't paying, back up your arguments with more solid evidence.
Eddy M Oct 2, 2011 at 7:34 PM
Reader Comments (1)
I agree, but I'd like to ad that services such as facebook and gmail are not free. When you use them the companies collect data about you (what time you use certain services, what you buy, your interests, who your friends are, what your religion is, who your friends are... etc.) This being said, their is no "free" argument when it comes to these services. you are exchanging your privacy for their services.