and it's common practice for schools to get software for free so he didn't do anything wrong.
It's not? Schools still have to purchase licenses, and in fact if they don't purchase the licenses then they run the risk of getting sued after being audited. Maybe educational licensing is cheaper than commercial licensing (I haven't checked, but I assume it may well be), but it is not free. (In fact, at my school, I've been denied use of software I wanted to use on several occasions since it was deemed "too expensive")
You are right, it's common practice for unis to talk to them. A substantial portion is free or steeply discounted, but that's all about the uni and the organisation coming to an arrangement. They'll often have a 'contact us if you are an educational institution' part on their pricing page. Or if it's common and large enough company they might just have that as a purchase option. Looking at maxon and zbrush (art software I'm more familiar with), for the full suite it's 2k AUD annually individually, or 300AUD for a lab license, and 2.3k for teams, with students paying half the full license fee also (so 1k anually). 2.3k->300 is a steep discount to be sure, but it's not free. This is pretty typical.
They uni can't just assume it and take it for free. That's insane.
Yeah it’s cheaper for educational institutions as it is for big corporations. As in they are buying usually more than 10 seats at a time and probably paying yearly. It’s like shopping at sams club, Costco or BJs, it’s cheaper because you are buying in bulk but it’s still more expensive than buying just one. They may give schools a bit better of a deal than the mega corp using it for profit but it’s still more expensive than just buying one license.
And LTT is more entertainment than educational and they would only need one license. Linus was just being cheap
This isn't entirely wrong. Without payment, content is much more sparse and lower budget and ad blockers reduce revenue. Of course, the real problem isn't so much ads as the ads being insufferable and far too often an avenue for malware. And this itself is a result of execs misunderstanding online ads; online ads can track engagement but often these are massively weighted at the expense of the original purpose of ads which was exposure and this weighting leads to ads being made more and more intrusive and annoying to target metrics to make out of touch executives happy.
Not so sure if the content quality was better. Prior to the dot com boom (and bust) the internet had very little content compared to now. The highlight was practically IRC. Today you can stream 4k content off the web and it's much easier to find content and there's way more of it.
Ads suck, I'm not going to argue that. I included some reasons why ads suck in my previous post. But it's hard to argue that they aren't contributing to making better quality content and making it accessible. Just because some shit exists out there doesn't mean the entirety of the modern internet is a failure. Just learn how to apply some filters to get the good stuff. That's what scored.co's algorithm is after all, it's a filter to help us find quality content.
And it would be incredibly naive to think the admins of this site weren't putting in all of this effort to make a functional and attractive site if making some coin by selling it off (to someone that would put ads on it) wasn't on the table.
Its the same as busking imo. You perform in public with the expectation you'll get paid but there's no contractual obligation for ppl to pay you either by donating or ads.
As it is, ltt gets paid via a lot of other sources
Good. He's insufferable, especially when he compared ad blockers to piracy
When did he do this? I know someone that follows him, so I'm curious as to what they're reaction would be to that.
It's not? Schools still have to purchase licenses, and in fact if they don't purchase the licenses then they run the risk of getting sued after being audited. Maybe educational licensing is cheaper than commercial licensing (I haven't checked, but I assume it may well be), but it is not free. (In fact, at my school, I've been denied use of software I wanted to use on several occasions since it was deemed "too expensive")
You are right, it's common practice for unis to talk to them. A substantial portion is free or steeply discounted, but that's all about the uni and the organisation coming to an arrangement. They'll often have a 'contact us if you are an educational institution' part on their pricing page. Or if it's common and large enough company they might just have that as a purchase option. Looking at maxon and zbrush (art software I'm more familiar with), for the full suite it's 2k AUD annually individually, or 300AUD for a lab license, and 2.3k for teams, with students paying half the full license fee also (so 1k anually). 2.3k->300 is a steep discount to be sure, but it's not free. This is pretty typical.
They uni can't just assume it and take it for free. That's insane.
Educational can be much cheaper, depending on program.
Yeah it’s cheaper for educational institutions as it is for big corporations. As in they are buying usually more than 10 seats at a time and probably paying yearly. It’s like shopping at sams club, Costco or BJs, it’s cheaper because you are buying in bulk but it’s still more expensive than buying just one. They may give schools a bit better of a deal than the mega corp using it for profit but it’s still more expensive than just buying one license.
And LTT is more entertainment than educational and they would only need one license. Linus was just being cheap
His mask is slipping
This isn't entirely wrong. Without payment, content is much more sparse and lower budget and ad blockers reduce revenue. Of course, the real problem isn't so much ads as the ads being insufferable and far too often an avenue for malware. And this itself is a result of execs misunderstanding online ads; online ads can track engagement but often these are massively weighted at the expense of the original purpose of ads which was exposure and this weighting leads to ads being made more and more intrusive and annoying to target metrics to make out of touch executives happy.
It's a complex topic.
It's almost as if gatekeeping improves quality.
Not so sure if the content quality was better. Prior to the dot com boom (and bust) the internet had very little content compared to now. The highlight was practically IRC. Today you can stream 4k content off the web and it's much easier to find content and there's way more of it.
Ads suck, I'm not going to argue that. I included some reasons why ads suck in my previous post. But it's hard to argue that they aren't contributing to making better quality content and making it accessible. Just because some shit exists out there doesn't mean the entirety of the modern internet is a failure. Just learn how to apply some filters to get the good stuff. That's what scored.co's algorithm is after all, it's a filter to help us find quality content.
And it would be incredibly naive to think the admins of this site weren't putting in all of this effort to make a functional and attractive site if making some coin by selling it off (to someone that would put ads on it) wasn't on the table.
Its the same as busking imo. You perform in public with the expectation you'll get paid but there's no contractual obligation for ppl to pay you either by donating or ads.
As it is, ltt gets paid via a lot of other sources