Responding to my "Who will pay for software?" post, Marc Canter points to tiered price model mentioned in his "Pay for usage" post as a way possible solution.

I think a well-known variation, metered service, will be quite attractive if users are given free monthly 'casual usage' allowances (10 hours a month sounds reasonable).

Software itself will be free to download, but if the usage (measured by the software itself) goes over 'causual usage' allowance for the month, the user will be billed for the extra hours.  When the total amount reaches the 'street price' of the software, user gets to own the product outright.

Would I go for this?  For software that I want to use brief-but-intensely or for software I intend to use all the time, my answer is yes.  But for software that I intend to use to create non-commercial contents with, like Maya ($1999 retail) or 3DS Max ($3500 retail), it is still a lot of money and very poor ROI. 

I think we need multiple creative solutions that, together, will bring the magic back into the software business.

On Saturday, "Dave" asked the question "Who will pay for software?" in a DaveNet article.  It's a tough question that raises a lot of issues.  Looking at those issues as a developer is particularly tough since survival instinct warps my judgement.  I feel that a user's perspective might shed more light than that of a developer.

I am artistic in a half-assed way, so I like to dabble with graphics programs like PhotoShop and Illustrator.  I use those programs frequently enough to buy them.  I also would like to do some 3D graphics and animations as well, but professional 3D tools are just too expensive for a dabbler like me.  So here are some questions from a user's perspective:

1. Why do part-time users like me have to pay just as much as fulltime users?
2. How can I pay for just what I use?
3. Why can't I pay as I use the software?
4. Can I pay when and if I profit from the contents I created?

One solution that might satisfy these questions is shared content ownership.  The idea is to provide powerful tools for free in return for sharing ownership of the contents created by the users using the tools.  Whether this business model will work or not is the big question.

As a user, I am willing to share ownership of contents I create with tools like Maya if I can use it for free.  As a developer, I am also willing to let people use tools I create for free in return for part ownership of the contents they create.  They were unlikely to buy my software in the first place, doing this will reduce software piracy as well as increase market awareness through peer-marketing.  Since most professional users will still pay upfront for my software to avoid sharing content ownership, I am not losing any existing revenue stream either.

Tim Bray goes further into RDF syntax problems to address issues raised in response to his recent post on the topic.  "Dave" thinks the problem is more serious than just syntax:

"But without a compelling app, or even better, a killer app, to pull it through, it doesn't matter what the format is….Anyway, I don't see any killer apps in the RDF crowd." – Dave Winer

My position lies somewhere between Tim and Dave's positions.  Trying to build a killer app with RDF is somewhat like sculpting with Jello, difficult.  Still, I have been surprised many times in the past by what people can do with very little.

One lucky guy or gal out of millions of non-RDF gurus out there might have the right stuff to pull it off.  Trouble is, the RDF syntax is preventing RDF killerapps from being conceived like some intellectual diaphragm.