Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I feel that we worry way too much about keeping our source code top-secret. One reason people think source code is valuable is because "the resulting product is valuable, so therefore the source code is even more valuable, right?" ... well, no. The product is valuable because of the thousands of small decisions you made as you were developing the product. The source code is just the manifestation of those…
While you mention that many of the benefits of keeping the source closed are either false or unimportant to you, you don't really give any compelling reason to open the source. Your argument for open sourcing your product is simply "why not?" rather than "why" :)
Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
41–50 of 73 posts
Re: Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I feel that we worry way too much about keeping our source code top-secret. One reason people think source code is valuable is because "the resulting product is valuable, so therefore the source code is even more valuable, right?" ... well, no. The product is valuable because of the thousands of small decisions you made as you were developing the product. The source code is just the manifestation of those…
One note about Id and their open source: they "only" release the source for their old engines, the most recent one is closed and licensed. Giving something away -after- it has earned you a billion is less risky than doing it -before- you've earned the money.
Also, one reason that Id's most recent engine (Id Tech 5) is closed and licensed is because of its brand-new technology: MegaTexture. As of now, no other engine has implemented that feature (or the engine isn't production-ready like Id Tech 5 is). So yeah, if you invent paradigm-shifting new technology, then it is probably a bad idea to immediately open-source it. :)
Re: Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
While you mention that many of the benefits of keeping the source closed are either false or unimportant to you, you don't really give any compelling reason to open the source. Your argument for open sourcing your product is simply "why not?" rather than "why" :)
Followup: I may be wrong but it seems that you're more concerned with the ideology of open source. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
But enough generalities. Here are a couple reasons in favor of open-sourcing your project:
- Free bug fixes. If a bug is affecting a number of users, then some users will at least feel like they can do something about it. That is a very tangible benefit because there's no faster way to lose a customer than if they discover they can't use your product for some mostly-trivial reason after they dropped $50. But for desktop apps, it's more likely that a user will just tweak the product slightly to suit them. They might even have fun with it.
- Free marketing. Even though the tech crowd is not nearly as massive as the consumer audience, techies are probably the most valuable type of customer. They will help build a community around your product by answering other users' questions, for example. And what better way to attract people like us than by offering us more control?
That said, the primary reason is to help people. When I was first getting started with programming, it would have helped me tremendously to see how an "industry-strength" game engine worked, for example. I personally like the idea that a novice might cut his time spent on learning down by half or more. All they need are real examples to tweak and to build upon. So if there aren't any reasons to keep source code secret, then I'm going to share it in the hope that it will inspire someone, somewhere. How cool would it be to have access to all of Facebook's source code? And Facebook wouldn't be endangered by that at all, because its value is in its content, not its source code.
Re: Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
#44One thing I would like to mention is. You want to be very careful because of you success others might/will want to copy it. You want to prepare your self strategically with a roadmap keeping in mind potential and hypothetical copy-cats/clones and how you can stay ahead of them. I would say companies like Zoho and other online suites would really want to add a service like this to their product mix. So stay sharp :)
Don't worry about competitors. Worry about making something people want.
Constantly improving your product, for what your users want, automatically protects you against competition. I also find that worrying about competitors (instead of customers) can lead to a self-defensive mindset.
If [users] take you up, no competitor can keep you down. http://www.paulgraham.com/startuplessons.html
Re: Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
#45Single founder + non-startup hub + non-web2.0-buzzworthy product == everything you're told not to do. I've said this before, but the biggest takeaway from the balsamiq story seems to be: put your head down and focus on making a great product, everything else will follow.
[1] http://codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog/2008/11/10/develop-new-...
Re: Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had this discussion with a (huge) US corporation, and they weren't interested in escrow, saying it was too complex. They wanted source code; and I had the impression that with appropriate license restrictions (i.e. they couldn't sell/distribute it) it wouldn't be a problem (actually, having source would help them give me bug reports). A secondary reason (or perhaps the true one?) was a sense of reassurance that the…
Personally, I feel that we worry way too much about keeping our source code top-secret. One reason people think source code is valuable is because "the resulting product is valuable, so therefore the source code is even more valuable, right?" ... well, no. The product is valuable because of the thousands of small decisions you made as you were developing the product. The source code is just the manifestation of those…
Re: Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Followup: I may be wrong but it seems that you're more concerned with the ideology of open source. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Yeah, you're right. I'm a big believer in "pay it forward" style gestures of goodwill. If you contribute to others, you are generally rewarded for it in the long run (sometimes in unexpected ways). That's happened to me enough times for me to believe that there is real value to be had in helping people. But enough generalities. Here are a couple reasons in favor of open-sourcing your project: - Free bug fixes. If a b…
Re: Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had this discussion with a (huge) US corporation, and they weren't interested in escrow, saying it was too complex. They wanted source code; and I had the impression that with appropriate license restrictions (i.e. they couldn't sell/distribute it) it wouldn't be a problem (actually, having source would help them give me bug reports). A secondary reason (or perhaps the true one?) was a sense of reassurance that the…
Personally, I feel that we worry way too much about keeping our source code top-secret. One reason people think source code is valuable is because "the resulting product is valuable, so therefore the source code is even more valuable, right?" ... well, no. The product is valuable because of the thousands of small decisions you made as you were developing the product. The source code is just the manifestation of those…
Re: Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, you're right. I'm a big believer in "pay it forward" style gestures of goodwill. If you contribute to others, you are generally rewarded for it in the long run (sometimes in unexpected ways). That's happened to me enough times for me to believe that there is real value to be had in helping people. But enough generalities. Here are a couple reasons in favor of open-sourcing your project: - Free bug fixes. If a b…
As the creator of a reasonably complex open-sourced research simulation code, I can point out a drawback with open-sourcing: The more successful you are, the more emails you will get with questions etc and responding to them can easily take quite a lot of time away from your real work. Of course, in that this is an increased incentive to document your code extensively, it might be a good thing, too... ;-)
After writing a book about an open-source project, I get a lot of questions by e-mail. My usual answer is "Ask the mailing list."
This is much better for everyone -- the answer becomes google-able, and they can draw from the experience of the entire community, not just me.
Re: Balsamiq hits $100,000 in revenue
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, you're right. I'm a big believer in "pay it forward" style gestures of goodwill. If you contribute to others, you are generally rewarded for it in the long run (sometimes in unexpected ways). That's happened to me enough times for me to believe that there is real value to be had in helping people. But enough generalities. Here are a couple reasons in favor of open-sourcing your project: - Free bug fixes. If a b…
As the creator of a reasonably complex open-sourced research simulation code, I can point out a drawback with open-sourcing: The more successful you are, the more emails you will get with questions etc and responding to them can easily take quite a lot of time away from your real work. Of course, in that this is an increased incentive to document your code extensively, it might be a good thing, too... ;-)
I couldn't agree more that it's very beneficial to thoroughly document your code. If you're curious, here's a snippet I wrote yesterday to tokenize a .X geometry file: http://pastebin.com/f74646d17 .... that type of aggressive source-code documentation is how I write all my code. My process is basically to write each function's entire algorithm in English, then to write the actual code. The result is "free" source code documentation. I also don't lose any productivity doing that. Just the opposite... I'm certain that it's more productive to write each function in that way, because I am constantly spotting bugs while writing the pseudocode that I otherwise wouldn't have caught until runtime. It's very easy to "misspeak" in C++. It's not a very good language for communicating concepts. But English is, and so by describing the same concept in both languages, you end up simplifying your ideas more than you would by just "speaking in one language". The result is usually a much simpler algorithm.
Unfortunately, the misconception that "writing comments makes you less productive" combined with the (valid) argument that "good code documents itself" makes this style of writing source code less than popular. But oh well, at least I can benefit from it, and maybe someone else will try it.