Computers are complicated. They are end products of complex large-scale technology, designed and manufactured by specialists. The fact that they work as well as they do is surprising. Someone intimately familiary with what it takes to make computers usable would readily admit that they barely work. For others, even trivial tasks such as getting microphones to work hint at the barely-restrained chaos under the hood. Whether it’s an average user cursing Windows for driver issues or an advanced user tearing their hair out over a script, these encounters remind us of our limited knowledge of systems that, ironically, we have engineered from scratch. Yet so many of us are expected to use computers every day and for every task. Hence, there is always a demand for the thin veneer of usability to reassure users that computers can be bent to their will. The service that fulfills this demand is proprietary software.

Why does it have to be proprietary? It doesn’t. But the task of developing and maintaining software is a non-trivial one, especially if it is designed to be used by people with no understanding of it. While developers of free (libre) software can create minimalist programs and rely on the community to find bugfixes and add features, proprietary software developers need to devote significant resources to customer service because they cannot rely on anyone else to maintain their product. If there is demand, there is money to be made. If the task of supplying that demand costs money, there is even more incentive to charge for it. Finally, since it is difficult to charge customers for a product that they can make themselves, the money-making software development scheme will inevitably gravitate towards the proprietary model. It will exist as long as there are users willing to pay for it.

The entire existence of proprietary software is due to the fact that we want computers to be simple when they are not. As Terry Davis said about comparing TempleOS to a motorcycle, “If you don’t want to crash it, don’t lean over.” A motorcycle rider knows how to ride it safely. The problem is that motorcycles aren’t good enough for us. We want cars that protect drivers from harm in case of accidents, parallel park themselves and even drive themselves around. That user-friendliness does not come free-of-charge.