Cloud Hosting Blog

The cost of things is often reflective of not only intrinsic value, but people are often effected positively or negatively by cost. Even our Rudolf plan raised some eyebrows because the low cost seemed too good to be true. Still many people enjoyed the benefits and came to realize that free or cheap does not always mean low quality.

Have you ever wondered why some “free” things are so excellent while others really are (or are viewed) as crap? On the Web, as in the physical world, people are assaulted by hordes of free gimmicks that are either not really free or not worth the time if day. Let’s examine a few free things and how they stack up in value.

Wikipedia is perhaps the best example of something that is free that also holds great value for users. The online encyclopedia is used my tens of millions of people at no cost either real or transferred. Of all the free stuff available to Internet users, Wikipedia stands virtually alone as Jimmy Wales’ contribution to transparent and totally open source knowledge. It is interesting to note here that even though Wikipedia is free, no one seems to devalue the service because it is too cheap. I wonder why this is?

Veoh TV is another “free” service that offers great value at essentially no cost. I think the perception of Veoh as the premier Web TV service is solidly illustrated by its wide user base and obvious quality. This is another interesting example of a service that while free, is never seen as second rate. Like broadcast TV, Veoh is not really free because of the ad revenue, but it is interesting that people never view “free” video as either cheap or less in value than the pair variety.

Linux is one of the most prominent examples of “free” software in the world. This open source development, viewed by many to be superior to Windows, is easily modified and imminently usable. Still, many see Linux as inferior and it has been surmised that part of the reason is simply because it is free. An article on Amazing Mind I read even suggests that Linux has fallen victim too what they term “the curse of being free”, which essentially observes that sometimes free does not always reflect quality. In this case I think that Widows’ market share and followers have more to do with Linux’s position than its perceived “cheapness”.

WordPress is by far the premier blogging platform out there and it is really free. I doubt anyone would ever perceive the quality of WP compromised because the service is free. I guess when we think about it, there are literally hundreds of Web services that are free to users, so perhaps “acceptance” of relative freeness within a domain has something to do with this. Any way, WP quality and value are almost up there with Wikipedia as far as being widely accepted and purely free.

Everyone buys Google whether it is actually free of not. In fairness to Google, at one time their services were the most exceptional available and for free essentially. However, Google is no longer really a free service. Combining the ad pressure and the cost of lost user value, might make Google the only service in this list that should be considered a bad deal. I know this is a stretch, but we lose a lot because of Google’s proliferation of the Web, and Google ads are so prolific that the cumulative time taken just viewing them is at the least bothersome. I expect few really see Google as low quality because it is free, or even grasp the point I was trying to make. Still, the search engine is good and until something better comes along, a good deal for “free”.

The cost of things is often reflective of not only intrinsic value, but sometimes people are effected positively or negatively by cost. Have you ever wondered why some “free” things are so excellent while others really are (or are viewed) as crap? On the Web, as in the physical world, people are assaulted by hordes of free gimmicks that are either not really free or not worth the time if day. Let’s examine a few free things and how they stack up in value.

So, we are back where we started from, “When does free or cheap mean low quality?” These services are obviously some of the best out there, and prone to be acceptable even at some cost. In honesty, most Internet services that are free and suck – are no longer in business probably. Perception is a strong motivational aspect for people though. Once people accept something as true, it is fairly difficult to get them to change their minds. At the other end of the spectrum, the terms “free” or “cheap” seem to be even more powerful today than in the past. I remember a time when “made in Japan” meant low cost and terrible quality. I just hope that “made on or for the Internet” does not come to mean the same thing.