Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A world where people pay for software

1sub.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 543 posts

Re: A world where people pay for software

#361

Post by Niksko »

thorncorona wrote: post #342
smolder wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are potentially other carrots aside from material wealth that can motivate people to do unpleasant work. Currently it takes significant pay to get people to do certain important but thankless jobs. We could thank them. A legacy is important to many people. They may enjoy an immutable commemoration of their work, if they're secure in a material sense.

This is the exact same answer every leftist I've talked to says when I ask them who will run the garbage system, and who will clean the sewers.

Running the garbage system is a desk job largely I would expect. It might not be the most stimulating subject matter to you, but I think it's within the realm of possibility that you'd find people who found it an interesting system to manage.

Cleaning the sewers sounds objectionable. I think you shouldn't discount the idea that in a societal structure that's different from ours you'd remove some of the social stigma that comes from such a job. But at the same time, if you observed that very very few people wanted to clean sewers for whatever reason, and there wasn't enough supply to meet demand, then you invest more in technology that reduces the shortfall. As others suggested, automation.

Re: A world where people pay for software

#362

Post by geocar »

thorncorona wrote: post #342
smolder wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are potentially other carrots aside from material wealth that can motivate people to do unpleasant work. Currently it takes significant pay to get people to do certain important but thankless jobs. We could thank them. A legacy is important to many people. They may enjoy an immutable commemoration of their work, if they're secure in a material sense.

This is the exact same answer every leftist I've talked to says when I ask them who will run the garbage system, and who will clean the sewers.

Why would you be so bothered to just let them? Would you feel embarrassed that "leftists" are nicer? That can be a motivation too! I know some people just show up so they can have someone to talk to for a few hours on a Saturday.

I think if you can't find volunteers, you can have a lottery.

Re: A world where people pay for software

#363

Post by slim »

coxley wrote: post #285

> # Developers > Sorry, there are no developers to subscribe to currently. If you actually want adoption, more needs done than posting the thing you built and suggesting people use it. Building effective, self-sufficient marketplaces is tough. Benefit has to be seen on both sides from the get-go.

I'm baffled by the fact the developer did not put himself on that list

Re: A world where people pay for software

#364

Post by myk9001 »

dbrueck wrote: post #351

A root of the problem is using economic models for physical items with digital goods and services. IMO the most sensical low level* economic model for digital things would be one where you pay a really tiny amount every time you derive value from something. A fraction of a penny each time you play a song, each time you edit an image in some software, each time you visit a website. There are a boatload of obstacles to…

This is basically the idea that motivated "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"[^1]

"The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions [...]"

And more recently Brave, the browser tried to implement it.

"Crypto and DeFi are hard to use and the $330 billion digital advertising industry is failing users, publishers and advertisers. With Basic Attention Token and Brave we want to take Crypto to the next 1B users and solve the endemic inefficiencies and privacy violations hobbling the digital ad industry."[^2]

I personally think this is a beautiful idea, had it worked out as envisioned, the Internet could've been a very different and likely better place now. Pity cryptocurrencies came to be what they're in their present condition.

---

[^1]: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[^2]: https://basicattentiontoken.org/

Re: A world where people pay for software

#365

Post by patrec »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #306

Computers have an unprecedented ability to reproduce value for free. Programmers need a relatively fixed amount of resources to thrive. (The value of resources varies by location but we all need things like food, shelter, transportation, clothing, tools, etc etc) If we can find a way to make sure every person has what they need to thrive regardless of their income, programmers can open source all of their software an…

Sounds like an excellent idea that will work really well because it's incredibly well aligned with how humans actually function. I really wonder why no one else has thought of communism before.

Re: A world where people pay for software

#366

Post by badtension »

andy99 wrote: post #32

How do you prevent or discourage the rise of "influencer developers"? The problem with subscriptions as a solution is that they end up being a popularity contest. That's not necessarily bad, if people want to spend their money that way but it doesn't solve the global problem of paying for those who write software. If it takes off it will just mean more Lex Fridman types get a big subscriber base, and a bunch more try…

I'd encourage a strong "progressive tax" that could for example follow the power law: you get log(x) of what your influence is. Getting to 1x (let's say a median pay in a given country) should be pretty easy but to get something like a $1M you would have to make software used on a massive scale.

Whatever revenue you generated that is above what you got paid would go towards the less "lucrative" projects and maintainers keeping the open source going.

Re: A world where people pay for software

#367

Post by jarjoura »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #306

Computers have an unprecedented ability to reproduce value for free. Programmers need a relatively fixed amount of resources to thrive. (The value of resources varies by location but we all need things like food, shelter, transportation, clothing, tools, etc etc) If we can find a way to make sure every person has what they need to thrive regardless of their income, programmers can open source all of their software an…

Humans have tried all kinds of value transfer systems for thousands of years. Giving someone "tokens" (ie. currency) to convert that into whatever they want, or need has been the most flexible version of whatever has come before it. What one person needs to thrive is not the same another person needs to thrive, so who gets to set what that level is?

I'd be skeptical of any system where there's no opportunity to get ahead as people will either find ways to take advantage of the system and screw others over, or the system becomes unsustainable as populations shift in size.

Re: A world where people pay for software

#368

Post by matkoniecz »

thorncorona wrote: post #342
smolder wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are potentially other carrots aside from material wealth that can motivate people to do unpleasant work. Currently it takes significant pay to get people to do certain important but thankless jobs. We could thank them. A legacy is important to many people. They may enjoy an immutable commemoration of their work, if they're secure in a material sense.

This is the exact same answer every leftist I've talked to says when I ask them who will run the garbage system, and who will clean the sewers.

Possible difference is that we may need far smaller number of programmers interested in dishwashers than we need for this jobs.

Re: A world where people pay for software

#369

Post by crazygringo »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #348
stronglikedan wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I avoid saas precisely because of the subscription model. Occasionally, I need to make a flowchart, but I don't need to make flowcharts every month. I used to be able to pay for a flowchart software once, and then use it occasionally. Now it seems that, to get quality flowchart software, I have to pay monthly for something I don't use monthly. So instead, I find some free flowchart software which may or may not be li…

Yes. I have some audio waveform generation software I use only once in a long while. I paid about $50 for it almost 5 years ago. If it were SaaS, I'd have paid a lot more than that over the last 5 years. A long time ago I worked out an agreement with a local gym. To avoid a membership that I would only need for a few months (I was living in a hotel temporarily with no access to my own equipment), I paid $10 each time…

> I paid $10 each time I showed up. This could be a useful model for rarely-used software.

But it already is. Pay for a month and then cancel. Repeat each time you need it.

I don't understand why people are assuming you have to pay continuously for years instead of just paying for the months you actually use.

Re: A world where people pay for software

#370

Post by dbrueck »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #359
dbrueck wrote: post #351

A root of the problem is using economic models for physical items with digital goods and services. IMO the most sensical low level* economic model for digital things would be one where you pay a really tiny amount every time you derive value from something. A fraction of a penny each time you play a song, each time you edit an image in some software, each time you visit a website. There are a boatload of obstacles to…

Interesting to think about. However, for that to be feasible I believe the draconian "copyright forever" laws would have to have never happened. I'm against paying rent to corporations to access the work of dead people on principle. Or past say, fifty years even if they lived.

I think I'm in the same boat as you, but can you articulate the 'why' behind that sentiment? (saying it's "on principle" could also be a way to not have to address that question, haha)

As in, if someone created something and you derive value (utility, enjoyment, etc.) from it, what is the basis for at some point no longer providing compensation for that utility?

FWIW, I haven't come up with a completely convincing answer, and yet I still feel like you do! Maybe there is no firm justification for terminating compensation, but instead it's more of an idea instilled by the culture, that after X years, the thing you created becomes owned by society at large just for the greater good, or maybe in recognition that your work came about because of prior accomplishments from others, or that as a society we want ongoing creativity and not stagnation.

Post reply on HN