Proprietary solution never cost "only" money. You generally have to negotiate licensing, then you have to renegotiate licensing when you need to make a change (or when you current terms expire). You have to invest effort into understanding your license (Open Source licenses are usually at least somewhat standardized and usually a lot short than proprietary licenses). Finally, the big kicker is vendor lock-in. If the vendor doesn't want to or can't support you business anymore, you have no choice but to replace their software. If the vendor want to change their terms, you can't find some one else to support you. If a vendor changes the product, you can't fork it to continue using it the way you need to.

I have never seen a proprietary software product that "only" cost money.

I think this misses the point, though-- no matter how true it is.

The costs associated with procuring the existing, proprietary solution are understood and accepted. If it goes wrong, it's a risk that the organization has collectively selected together.

Advocating for doing something cheaper doesn't gain any individual person that much necessarily, and incurs outsized risk. It also incurs a lot of explicit, poorly-understood costs outside of those already accepted and recurring costs.

Selling any sort of change to any company is usually very hard. It has nothing to do with proprietary versus open source. Open Source is a major selling point, and the Open Source community can/needs to do better explaining the value proposition of Open Source. That is why companies that wish to sell change employ salespeople.

Right. I don't think anyone else in this thread really said that it had something to do with proprietary vs. open source or even very much to do with free-as-in-beer vs. costly.

Companies choosing a piece of software is more than the quality of the software. A superior piece of software isn't enough.

For example, many companies want (and sometimes require) the ability to have a support contract with developers for things this critical. The people making these decisions may not even be technical and close to the system within the management structure.

Companies also may have rules and requirements that govern who they can pay and how. For example, just donating money to a developer some developers in their company like or use the software of isn't going to fly. In some countries it may not even be legal. Sometimes you need to run things as a business and jump through some hoops to make it all work financially and without burn out.

Some of this is just how the business world works. With so many businesses in so many different legal jurisdictions there's almost no way to change the system.

Skilled trades people who strike out on their own have to learn enough business to operate. It's not just about doing their skill. There's a fair amount of mentoring that happens to help people learn that stuff. Maybe we need more of that in software.

>>>> Things that currently work and "only" cost money are a problem solved for a company. If they have to change it they have to spend their "intelectual budget" on it. Meaning resources like technical people which are probably already scarce and working on other project need to be assigned to it.

This is on the mark. This is why "upgrading" anything is hard. Stuff already implemented and being used has an inertia, which is very hard to overcome.