<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Suicide of Design</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.notesondesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.NotesOnDesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:38:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Green</title>
		<link>http://www.NotesOnDesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-175798</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notesondesign.net/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-175798</guid>
		<description>So, to follow your thinking, whatever you can't afford you should take for free. Think cars are outrageously priced? Take it. Nice suit to clothes too expensive? Take it. How about the product or service you sell? I want it for half of what you are asking. What's the difference?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, to follow your thinking, whatever you can&#8217;t afford you should take for free. Think cars are outrageously priced? Take it. Nice suit to clothes too expensive? Take it. How about the product or service you sell? I want it for half of what you are asking. What&#8217;s the difference?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NIC</title>
		<link>http://www.NotesOnDesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-175783</link>
		<dc:creator>NIC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:30:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notesondesign.net/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-175783</guid>
		<description>Yes, some good points, but most software you shouldn't have to pay for anymore. That's how the market is heading, so it is up to these companies to adjust their business models. When Adobe charges over 1000 dollars for their producst they don't expect average consumers to buy it. They can't. As an average consumer, I therefore shouldn't feel bad pirating it because its unrealistic and unfare for me to use it at full price. If I started using their software to make money, that would be a different story and I would gladly pay. If it was reasonably priced that would be different. Same thing with font. In the information age, why should i pay $40 for font? Thats ridiculous and inconsistent with the way everything else is priced. Its their job to come up with a better business model. The record companies have slowly begun to do this. Its about time software companies followed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, some good points, but most software you shouldn&#8217;t have to pay for anymore. That&#8217;s how the market is heading, so it is up to these companies to adjust their business models. When Adobe charges over 1000 dollars for their producst they don&#8217;t expect average consumers to buy it. They can&#8217;t. As an average consumer, I therefore shouldn&#8217;t feel bad pirating it because its unrealistic and unfare for me to use it at full price. If I started using their software to make money, that would be a different story and I would gladly pay. If it was reasonably priced that would be different. Same thing with font. In the information age, why should i pay $40 for font? Thats ridiculous and inconsistent with the way everything else is priced. Its their job to come up with a better business model. The record companies have slowly begun to do this. Its about time software companies followed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sectionals</title>
		<link>http://www.NotesOnDesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-153282</link>
		<dc:creator>sectionals</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 18:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notesondesign.net/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-153282</guid>
		<description>I think the best thing to do is to try find for free first, or even still. Because  some people on internet find, steal it and then sell to you. And you pay, what the point then.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the best thing to do is to try find for free first, or even still. Because  some people on internet find, steal it and then sell to you. And you pay, what the point then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Green</title>
		<link>http://www.NotesOnDesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-141071</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notesondesign.net/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-141071</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comment. I understand your concerns, but allow me to add this:

The creative person IS the big corporation.

You can track any organization back to a person or a small group of people with an idea. They believe in their idea to the extent that they are willing to invest their time and resources to give it life.

That "system" of people with the idea worked within the "system" in which they live--one that is loosely organized to provide basics such as shelter, food, security, transportation, and so on. 

Now imagine that one of the people developing the idea uses a telephone one day. In doing so, aren't they acknowledging their need for and faith in that system? And by paying their phone bill aren't they compensating the worker who mined the ore that produced the bolt used to assemble the tower on which the lines are strung that make their call possible? 

We can agree that some groups of people seem to receive an unreasonable amount of compensation for the idea they developed, but beauty of our system is we are free to replace it with our own alternative. The critical piece, and what I was originally talking about, is that we play by the rules of the game we find ourselves a part of. That we abide by the rules of the current system until we replace it with a better alternative. 

Imagine for a moment the billions of creative thoughts and ideas contributed by the hundreds of millions of people who have made it possible for me to click on a key and make what I type show up on your computer--it is staggering. 

To define everything solely in terms of our personal world would ignore the contributions of all those who made our way of life and work possible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comment. I understand your concerns, but allow me to add this:</p>
<p>The creative person IS the big corporation.</p>
<p>You can track any organization back to a person or a small group of people with an idea. They believe in their idea to the extent that they are willing to invest their time and resources to give it life.</p>
<p>That &#8220;system&#8221; of people with the idea worked within the &#8220;system&#8221; in which they live&#8211;one that is loosely organized to provide basics such as shelter, food, security, transportation, and so on. </p>
<p>Now imagine that one of the people developing the idea uses a telephone one day. In doing so, aren&#8217;t they acknowledging their need for and faith in that system? And by paying their phone bill aren&#8217;t they compensating the worker who mined the ore that produced the bolt used to assemble the tower on which the lines are strung that make their call possible? </p>
<p>We can agree that some groups of people seem to receive an unreasonable amount of compensation for the idea they developed, but beauty of our system is we are free to replace it with our own alternative. The critical piece, and what I was originally talking about, is that we play by the rules of the game we find ourselves a part of. That we abide by the rules of the current system until we replace it with a better alternative. </p>
<p>Imagine for a moment the billions of creative thoughts and ideas contributed by the hundreds of millions of people who have made it possible for me to click on a key and make what I type show up on your computer&#8211;it is staggering. </p>
<p>To define everything solely in terms of our personal world would ignore the contributions of all those who made our way of life and work possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous coward</title>
		<link>http://www.NotesOnDesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-140932</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous coward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:39:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notesondesign.net/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-140932</guid>
		<description>While I basically agree, I also have to disagree on some points, namely the price of the work result being offered. Unfortunately, unlincensed copying of restricted works and monetary compensation for the author of the given work are two different things in our society. Big corporations always strive for market domination and thus the ability to dictate any price. The price tag on software or other digital work is often completely arbitrary and not related to the amount of work that has been done to create it. Don't get me wrong - I am more than willing to pay for the things I'm using, be it software, hardware or services, but I want to be able to bypass the "big corporation" amount of money that does NOT go directly into the pocket of the creative persons involved. It is well known that corporations charge multiple times the amount of money for a product than what was invested to create it - or worse - than it's actually worth.

If the software industry would charge reasonable prices AND assure to the customer that the biggest part of the money goes directly to the creators, I'd feel more at ease buying software or fonts.

Meanwhile, I continue to use open source software, fonts and operating systems wherever possible, because these people are able to provide high quality software for FREE, while others can't do this even for money.
Not because I do not want to pay for anything, but because I'm not willing to put up with greedy corporations and people whining about their content being used without their consent. Have a look at the chinese product pirate machinery, then talk about people ripping off fonts again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I basically agree, I also have to disagree on some points, namely the price of the work result being offered. Unfortunately, unlincensed copying of restricted works and monetary compensation for the author of the given work are two different things in our society. Big corporations always strive for market domination and thus the ability to dictate any price. The price tag on software or other digital work is often completely arbitrary and not related to the amount of work that has been done to create it. Don&#8217;t get me wrong - I am more than willing to pay for the things I&#8217;m using, be it software, hardware or services, but I want to be able to bypass the &#8220;big corporation&#8221; amount of money that does NOT go directly into the pocket of the creative persons involved. It is well known that corporations charge multiple times the amount of money for a product than what was invested to create it - or worse - than it&#8217;s actually worth.</p>
<p>If the software industry would charge reasonable prices AND assure to the customer that the biggest part of the money goes directly to the creators, I&#8217;d feel more at ease buying software or fonts.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I continue to use open source software, fonts and operating systems wherever possible, because these people are able to provide high quality software for FREE, while others can&#8217;t do this even for money.<br />
Not because I do not want to pay for anything, but because I&#8217;m not willing to put up with greedy corporations and people whining about their content being used without their consent. Have a look at the chinese product pirate machinery, then talk about people ripping off fonts again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tuvie</title>
		<link>http://www.NotesOnDesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-136619</link>
		<dc:creator>tuvie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notesondesign.net/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-136619</guid>
		<description>this is great article for designers, they should read this</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this is great article for designers, they should read this</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: igreenspot</title>
		<link>http://www.NotesOnDesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-136618</link>
		<dc:creator>igreenspot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notesondesign.net/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-136618</guid>
		<description>Treat others fairly, they will treat you the same way. Great article !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Treat others fairly, they will treat you the same way. Great article !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: destinycreature</title>
		<link>http://www.NotesOnDesign.net/inspiration/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-135948</link>
		<dc:creator>destinycreature</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:50:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notesondesign.net/design/the-suicide-of-design/#comment-135948</guid>
		<description>Well written article...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well written article&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
