Live data from Hacker News

I Think Your App Should Be Free

blog.earbits.com

181–190 of 242 posts

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#181
post #119

If musicians had nearly as much stake in their distributed product, from a percent standpoint, as a startup founder has in his/her business, or if the music industry were remotely as equitable, all things considered, as the software industry, then the essay's apparent allegory might ring a little more true to me. But the practical reality is musicians don't have a similar stake, or a similar chance at making a sustai…

And indeed the market has spoken, and most android developers have listened: Apps Should Be Free(mium). That's the difference between startups and Big Music. Startups figure out how to make money out of free apps.

You may well be right and perhaps there is no future in paid apps. However that should be the choice of the creator/publisher, not somebody who cracks the app and re-publishes it. If their app is worth 99 cents or whatever then people will vote with their wallets.

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#182
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Startups figure out how to make money out of free apps. I don't know if most of them do. If I look around in the android market there are some great apps, that very likely do not make any money although they offer actual value to the customer. I don't get it, why should apps be released for free? Especially on Android I am surprised as to how many free(mium) apps are available, which could and should be paid apps, s…

The idea that a customer should pay you to install your app is naive and out-dated. You will simply be beaten by competition who allow customers to install the app for no cost (i.e. everyone else ). But beyond that, if your only way to exchange value with your customer (i.e. they give you money in exchange for something), is at installation , then you are missing out on most of your revenue. There are tons of article…

thx, actually quite an interesting read.

thx, actually quite an interesting read. I wouldn't say that the concept of selling an app is naive and outdated. But yes, competitors will probably release a similar app for free, which indeed is a dilemma.

Also, not all apps have potential to generate an alternative revenue stream, if so, great, otherwise I believe it can be quite problematic to monetize on many app concepts.

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't steal anything (nobody no longer has it because of you), you pirated it.

When the guy that wrote the thesis theme for Wordpress was being demonized for violating the GNU license, people used the word "steal" and "theft", even though no code was actually stolen. It's interesting to me because when something involves free software being used in un-intended ways, many here in the HN community have no problem describing it as theft. However, when it involves copyright violation, there are hug…

"Identity theft is still called theft"

Identities are supposed to be unique, its part of the whole idea of identity. If someone else is using your identity, you are being deprived that. So in that case, yes, it is analogous to someone actually taking something physical to you. You cannot fully use your identity once someone else starts using it.

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Startups figure out how to make money out of free apps. I don't know if most of them do. If I look around in the android market there are some great apps, that very likely do not make any money although they offer actual value to the customer. I don't get it, why should apps be released for free? Especially on Android I am surprised as to how many free(mium) apps are available, which could and should be paid apps, s…

> All in all it seems that this trend of releasing apps for free does nobody any good, since it will stall innovation at some point. It does nobody any good? How about the users ? I don't buy the "it will stall innovation" argument. Having Linux be free didn't stall innovation, quite the opposite. I'd even say without it being free, we wouldn't be where we are now in regards to innovation. Large companies would still…

...because taking money for that software lets you continue to eat while writing more, better software?

Ain't a hard concept.

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#185
I think there should be a new way of control in the app, like only letting people registered on a database use the app, and in that database there should be only users that had paid for that service, but this is more trouble for the user, and users hate this, also piracy sometimes is fault of the user and sometimes is fault of the developer, i had to get some free apps because getting the app is really hard because of the restrictions on my country, but piracy is a problem every developer has so instead of complaining after the app is done, we have to make a contingency plan so we can be ready for all.

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, people can support an musician by buying concert tickets and merchandise. Software doesn't let people "morally offset" piracy in other ways.

The whole idea of moral offsetting is nonsense. That's like saying that I'm going to steal Oreos from the grocery store but make up for it by buying milk.

I didn't say it was ethical, but you can't deny that it definitely makes it easier for people to justify piracy in their minds.

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing different about the plumber and the artist. The plumber comes to your house and leaves you with a working toilet. The artist goes to the studio and leaves you with a copy of a song. In both cases, you now have something of value created by another person. Both would like to be paid for their work. Last I checked, no artists are selling MP3s to consumers on a per stream royalty basis. They're asking f…

> There is nothing different about the plumber and the artist. > Both would like to be paid for their work. No. A plumber wants to be paid for work, your musician wants to be paid a rent. A plumber wants to be paid once, your musician wants to be paid for every copy. If your musician comes to me and offers to make a song, and I agree to pay to fund it, then fine: we make an exchange just like a plumber and customer.…

This whole analogy is kind of weak. Hiring a plumber to come in and do a job on your sink is similar to hiring a session musician to come in and lay down a bass track on your recording, and not very similar to buying an album.

Buying an album from a musician is similar to buying a book about plumbing that a plumber wrote, and I imagine that most such plumber-writers would indeed have interest in protecting their copyright on their books.

These are entirely different business models, and we software engineers should understand them immediately. It's the difference between running a consulting business and running a product business.

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#188
If musicians spent half as much time paying attention in economics class as they did strumming their guitars, they might understand the situation a little better.

"Piracy" exists for one reason and one reason alone: the price is too high for the consumer. There will always be a subset of the economy that will steal a particular good (i.e. for whom the price is always too high), from CD's to clothing to Ferrari's. This criminal element is simply a cost of doing business, really. In a healthy market, their costs are easily absorbed by a much larger subset that is prepared to pay the set price of the good. Match demand for the product reasonably well with supply and everyone is happy.

When a product is priced at a level that is greater than the market values, problems emerge. In open/free markets, you tend to get competition and innovation, and individual business losses. In closed/highly regulated markets, you tend to get black markets, bootlegging and all sorts of evasion if demand is high enough to warrant. This is as true for music and software as it is for gasoline, alcohol and copper wire. Music piracy is simply a black market that is only sustained because enough of the market thinks the price is too high.

The labels that have tightly controlled the market for music (commoditizing something that 50% of the population can supply) have done so by closing all distribution channels and limiting any real supply in order to exaggerate demand. Consumers didn't really know that they were being ripped off, since the supply chain was so tightly controlled. That changed with Napster.

Once the entire industry was exposed, and music began to revert back to a more natural value that one would expect for such a large supply, the market's opinion of the product began to change as well. (To be honest the shift probably went too far to the other side, but it started to regulate as things like itunes emerged)

What's evident is that there is clearly a value above zero that the market will place on music. If this wasn't the case, iTunes wouldn't be around. The problem that most labels - and sadly artists - fail realize is that the particular dollar point could be a lot lower than they would like it to be. Probably more like $.50 a song rather than the current $.99 cent price point.

The market will determine that price though, not the suppliers. Until then, major piracy will continue. Find that price point though, and piracy will go back to meaning peg legs and eye patches.

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#189
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And indeed the market has spoken, and most android developers have listened: Apps Should Be Free(mium). That's the difference between startups and Big Music. Startups figure out how to make money out of free apps.

Great idea. Let's start inserting commercials into our songs. Now you're onto something.

Sorry, but have you listened to a rap song lately? How many models of car, alcohol and fashion are listed in the average 3 minutes?

Re: I Think Your App Should Be Free

#190
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overall good? The overall good of what? Your right to listen to music for free? That's not good overall for the artists who created that music. Why should they have to make 2nd and 3rd products that you "approve of" in order to be compensated? People already use lack of easy access as their excuse for piracy. Now you want them to make some hard to crack app just for people to be able to listen to it? How about pe…

> The overall good? The overall good of what? If you swallow a cost of 10, but that 11 people gets 1 from your contribution, the society as a whole wins. > How about people just stop taking what's not theirs and treat artists with respect? When something that used to be hard becomes totally simple, obvious and costless, there is absolutely no sense trying to stick to the previous state of the matter. When Gutenberg i…

If you swallow a cost of 10, but that 11 people gets 1 from your contribution, the society as a whole wins.

It sounds to me like you're saying "so long as society sees a net gain, it's ok to exploit other people"

Post reply on HN