Live data from Hacker News

On paying for software

seths.blog

111–120 of 279 posts

Re: On paying for software

#111
post #28

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linking to this post: https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/

I can understand how you feel and I also think your blog post is correct in many ways. However I think software should be reasonably priced which is most often not the case. And also people can't pay everybody 5-10 dollar/euro for everything, we would quickly need to pay thousands of dollars/euros yearly to access/use everything. That's why I think sometimes having another way of "paying", like through ads or maybe s…

And then it comes around full circle when to get advertisers you need to market them properly to specific people who would be most likely to buy their products. Then you start collecting data on users to figure out who would match with what, then the customer becomes the product.

Re: On paying for software

#112
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with open source is, for some reason, the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users or the people who donate to them. MacOS devs do and will go out of their way to make sure their software is not just usable, but a sheer pleasure to use in every way possible. Yes, there are exceptions (I'm looking at you, Apple, with your Xcode and your Finder) but for the most part that's just the way thing…

Speaking of exceptions to this...they really need to fix their damn multi monitor support. It’s one of the few things Windows is far better at. I get that a small number of Mac users are even affected by this, but man would I appreciate that a lot more than Dark Mode. And I love Dark Mode.

What issues have you experienced with their multimonitor support?

Re: On paying for software

#113
I would not have a problem paying for software if what I was paying for didn't suck. Case in point: I have never been very happy with Win 10 since I got it, but in recent weeks it has become completely unusable, mostly because of their constant upgrades and behind-the-scenes processes that slow my machine down to a crawl. Out of frustration I wiped my drive and installed Ubuntu. Granted, Linux has it's share of problems but still works much better for my uses. So, one OS is paid and one isn't. Guess which? :/ My personal gripe is that it seems to me, when it comes to basic customer service, we the customers are on the bottom of the totem pole. Software companies spend more time worrying about how to reassure their shareholders than they do about making sure we have a usable, hassle-free product, and I've been seeing this trend getting worse in recent years. So until that thought-process changes these people will not get my money. As far as I'm concerned, at this point anyway, FOSS is the lesser of two evils.

Re: On paying for software

#114

I would not have a problem paying for software if what I was paying for didn't suck. Case in point: I have never been very happy with Win 10 since I got it, but in recent weeks it has become completely unusable, mostly because of their constant upgrades and behind-the-scenes processes that slow my machine down to a crawl. Out of frustration I wiped my drive and installed Ubuntu. Granted, Linux has it's share of probl…

Ubuntu gives you a very clear option to pay for it when you download it.

If it works for you and you want it to keep working, making a donation/payment may not be the worst idea.

Re: On paying for software

#115
I've always felt that charging money for software is dumb.

I, as a programmer, think about saying to other people that they cannot use a piece of software that is already written unless they give me money, is a damn ridiculous idea.

Software is wealth.

If I had a gold coin that had the property that I could give it to you and still have it, and that both coins would increase in value when I did, and that you and I both can repeat the process endlessly, then there is no good reason not to give out the coin copies freely.

One model of a computer is a set of automatic functions that each solve some human problem or need. We should all be working together to expand that library of functions as rapidly as responsibly possible.

Attempting to extract value from the economy per-copy is retarding the whole system. It's a selfish local optimization. My basic argument is that we should use computers and software to globally maximize human happiness and contentment, and avoid local optima.

tl;dr: "Don't be greedy."

So how do you make money? First, if you want a lot of money, open a bank. Let's narrow the question: How do I make a living? House, picket fence, family, doge and qat, gotta have a car, etc... Let's put a ceiling on it, even if it's high. Let's also avoid discussion of financial meta-games, you save and invest, so if you avoid misfortune you're more or less going to be okay, right?

So, how are programmers supposed to make enough money to live the dream if we don't charge per copy?

First of all, the best way to do it since the dawn of the internet is simple: Get 10,000 fans who love you and sell them stuff. (Or just ask them to support you, like the Zig creator is doing.) This is a simple, easy, universally accessible method that's pretty much guaranteed to work.

Second best way: get paid to solve new problems (one thing I am not saying is that you shouldn't charge people to work on a problem you otherwise wouldn't work on, that's fine. Charging people to use your solution after it's been developed is the stupid thing to do, IMO.)

Third(-ish, this list isn't precise nor prescriptive) teach people. I think that learning the Turing Machine trick makes people think better, and learning to program obviously empowers them. (I remember the first time I used an iPad, I thought "this isn't a computer, it's a mall in your hand") The information revolution is still happening, and people need your help to navigate it and reap the full benefits.

Fourth, here's the meta-most: You should be living in a very-low-overhead way right now anyway. We have to learn to live in harmony with Nature or we are about to tank our whole civilization. Go outside, it's June, where are all the bugs?

Re: On paying for software

#116
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Linux and most free software projects allow donations. I even donated to projects I don't actually use, like FreeBSD. I donated money to many free software projects, Ardour, Mozilla, LibreOffice, OpenBSD, etc. This is clearly a false dichotomy.

The problem with open source is, for some reason, the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users or the people who donate to them. MacOS devs do and will go out of their way to make sure their software is not just usable, but a sheer pleasure to use in every way possible. Yes, there are exceptions (I'm looking at you, Apple, with your Xcode and your Finder) but for the most part that's just the way thing…

I actually find open source developers to be far more passionate about their projects than developers of commercial software. This makes sense to me, as they work on these projects because they want to, not because they have to.

Re: On paying for software

#117
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marginal and transaction costs are very low. But you are right on the principle : storing, copying and transferring data always costs energy (in physics, temperature, energy and change of entropy are linked together)

OK, maybe you still have a point. What then, would be the threshold for saying: now, at this point, the costs of X are not marginal anymore but substantial enough to be taken into account?

Depends on what you are thinking about ? Such cost always need to be taken into account, but IMHO in general we must always differentiate material things (that are formed from matter and its organization) and information (i.e. concept of entropy, ideas, thoughts, songs, language, jokes etc..) which have temporary physical supports but exists apart from them

Re: On paying for software

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with open source is, for some reason, the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users or the people who donate to them. MacOS devs do and will go out of their way to make sure their software is not just usable, but a sheer pleasure to use in every way possible. Yes, there are exceptions (I'm looking at you, Apple, with your Xcode and your Finder) but for the most part that's just the way thing…

I actually find open source developers to be far more passionate about their projects than developers of commercial software. This makes sense to me, as they work on these projects because they want to, not because they have to.

Passion isn't a barometer of anything but whether the developer likes his job. It certainly doesn't translate into better or more user friendly software.

Re: On paying for software

#119

I've always felt that charging money for software is dumb. I, as a programmer, think about saying to other people that they cannot use a piece of software that is already written unless they give me money, is a damn ridiculous idea. Software is wealth. If I had a gold coin that had the property that I could give it to you and still have it, and that both coins would increase in value when I did, and that you and I bo…

> doge and qat

I'm not a native English speaker. What are those?

Re: On paying for software

#120
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to copyright law we don't need to hide our codebases in order to charge for our work. I don't understand that part ?

Before patents, copyright law, and all that, secrecy was the only way to stop people copying your stuff. That was kinda crappy, and people went to great lengths to obfuscate their IP, expending lots of effort on something that had no benefit for their customers / the world. Intellectual property law changed that - it made it possible for people to openly disclose their inventions whilst maintaining control of them (n…

How is copyright / patents / IP making companies' code bases open to public or it's secrecy is not as guarded as before (as implied by your quote) ?
Post reply on HN