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

Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

blog.digsby.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#11

Post by anamax »

pj wrote: post #3

I know I'll probably absorb an 8 point hit to my karma for saying this, but all the innovation around how to monetize free software is a bullet point that it doesn't work. I have been considering building my own home lately and while at the hardware store, i picked up a thick book of home plans. As I flipped through, I realized, this isn't a book of home plans, it's a catalog for plans that you can buy. So I thought,…

> As I flipped through, I realized, this isn't a book of home plans, it's a catalog for plans that you can buy.

Actually, it's a book of dreams. Most folks who buy that book will never build a house, but they'll look at that book and dream about doing so.

Many books/publications are much the same.

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#12

Post by bilbo0s »

pj wrote: post #3

I know I'll probably absorb an 8 point hit to my karma for saying this, but all the innovation around how to monetize free software is a bullet point that it doesn't work. I have been considering building my own home lately and while at the hardware store, i picked up a thick book of home plans. As I flipped through, I realized, this isn't a book of home plans, it's a catalog for plans that you can buy. So I thought,…

Actually,

I used to be involved medical software. And, yes, you do go to federal pound me in the a$$ prison if MEDICAL software you create has bugs in it. The whole FDA approval thing cuts two ways, and it is a VERY sharp blade. That's why most software engineers won't write such software. How long could they stay out of prison using PHP or Python? Imagine a trauma center's server going down. Yep! Off you go to prison son. A missed tumor because your imaging code did not bring out enough contrast. That's good for 7 - 12 years. The lack of guarantees in the floating point code alone is probably enough to get a lot of these guys 5 to 10.

And yes, it has happened . . . several times!

These sorts of laws would make you code like your life depends on it . . . because it does.

Be careful what you wish for. That's all I can say.

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#13

Post by huhtenberg »

Either model is hardly innovative.

The installer bundling has been used by the shareware people for ages as an alternative for paying for the application. From recent notable examples - Trillian IM introduced the exact same bundling over a year ago.

The CPU stealing add-on is not exactly an innovation either. The very idea is actually covered by a patent held by a company called Gomez (may be not them, can't remember 100%). The fact that I have to disable it (instead of optionally enabling it) is a reason enough not touch this Digsby thing with a long pole.

Also calling this lovely add-on a "research module" is nothing short of trying to conceal and obscure its real purpose. It is there to generate money by reselling my CPU time. Period. It does not matter if it is not running when the laptop is not plugged in. And I am sure as hell if it was called "let other people use my CPU when it is idle", no one would've enabled it ever. So they are effectively tricking people into using it, which in turn doesn't sit right with me.

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#14

Post by pcc »

pj wrote: post #3

I know I'll probably absorb an 8 point hit to my karma for saying this, but all the innovation around how to monetize free software is a bullet point that it doesn't work. I have been considering building my own home lately and while at the hardware store, i picked up a thick book of home plans. As I flipped through, I realized, this isn't a book of home plans, it's a catalog for plans that you can buy. So I thought,…

Here's an example of an "industry" that gives away the product of their work for free: academic research.

Now in this "industry" the free flow of this product has allowed people to build on the shoulders of giants and arguably made a big contribution to the world.

Likewise I notice that these days when we are building, for example, various embedded gizmos, we can suddenly achieve a far higher level of functionality, integration, communication etc -- because we no longer have to write (or buy in) building blocks such as TCP/IP stack, memory management or whatever.

So open source greatly facilitates this "standing on the shoulders of giants"...

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#15

Post by BrentRitterbeck »

pcc wrote: post #14
pj wrote: post #3

I know I'll probably absorb an 8 point hit to my karma for saying this, but all the innovation around how to monetize free software is a bullet point that it doesn't work. I have been considering building my own home lately and while at the hardware store, i picked up a thick book of home plans. As I flipped through, I realized, this isn't a book of home plans, it's a catalog for plans that you can buy. So I thought,…

Here's an example of an "industry" that gives away the product of their work for free: academic research. Now in this "industry" the free flow of this product has allowed people to build on the shoulders of giants and arguably made a big contribution to the world. Likewise I notice that these days when we are building, for example, various embedded gizmos, we can suddenly achieve a far higher level of functionality,…

You severely misunderstand academic research. It is "given away" to get more research funds, to advance one's career inside academia, and to abide by the guidelines of the previous money you have taken.

EDIT: For some it's "given away" to fill some deep hole in one's ego.

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#16

Post by pj »

bilbo0s wrote: post #12
pj wrote: post #3

I know I'll probably absorb an 8 point hit to my karma for saying this, but all the innovation around how to monetize free software is a bullet point that it doesn't work. I have been considering building my own home lately and while at the hardware store, i picked up a thick book of home plans. As I flipped through, I realized, this isn't a book of home plans, it's a catalog for plans that you can buy. So I thought,…

Actually, I used to be involved medical software. And, yes, you do go to federal pound me in the a$$ prison if MEDICAL software you create has bugs in it. The whole FDA approval thing cuts two ways, and it is a VERY sharp blade. That's why most software engineers won't write such software. How long could they stay out of prison using PHP or Python? Imagine a trauma center's server going down. Yep! Off you go to priso…

wow, that's crazy. If a doctor makes a mistake like that they don't go to jail! how does that work?? it doesn't even make sense!

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#17

Post by pcc »

BrentRitterbeck wrote: post #15
pcc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an example of an "industry" that gives away the product of their work for free: academic research. Now in this "industry" the free flow of this product has allowed people to build on the shoulders of giants and arguably made a big contribution to the world. Likewise I notice that these days when we are building, for example, various embedded gizmos, we can suddenly achieve a far higher level of functionality,…

You severely misunderstand academic research. It is "given away" to get more research funds, to advance one's career inside academia, and to abide by the guidelines of the previous money you have taken. EDIT: For some it's "given away" to fill some deep hole in one's ego.

I used to be an academic, with industrial research projects, for some time, so I'm relatively confident I understand how academia works.

1. I wasn't suggesting at all that academic research isn't paid for. Clearly the people doing the work somehow earn money and make a living, some of them exceedingly well. Nowhere was I suggesting that people do academic research for the pure love and charity of giving stuff away for free.

2. In large part, everyone gets to share and benefit from their output -- and most of those benefiting would have had no direct financial involvement with the work.

So, here we have a model where the product is available for free while the creators somehow earn a living (probably by being domain experts or by knowing how to apply their free "product" in the context of something more specifically revenue generating).

How is there not a correlation with; and a counterexample to; some of the arguments from the parent comment?

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#18

Post by sound2man »

embeddedradical wrote: post #8
jdrock wrote: post #6

Disclaimer: I work for the company that develops the grid technology Digsby's using, so I suppose I have some bias. I think Digsby has recognized user's feelings on this issue and their latest update addresses these feelings directly. The new version makes our grid technology apparent to the user. I think the fact they addressed the issue head-on counts for something. I also feel that it is important for "free" softw…

what is this grid technology, and can i supply processing horsepower and get paid?

They pay about $2.50 per CPU at 100% per month. A fraction of the cost of electricity, but lucrative for Digsby.

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#19

Post by BrentRitterbeck »

pcc wrote: post #17
BrentRitterbeck wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You severely misunderstand academic research. It is "given away" to get more research funds, to advance one's career inside academia, and to abide by the guidelines of the previous money you have taken. EDIT: For some it's "given away" to fill some deep hole in one's ego.

I used to be an academic, with industrial research projects, for some time, so I'm relatively confident I understand how academia works. 1. I wasn't suggesting at all that academic research isn't paid for. Clearly the people doing the work somehow earn money and make a living, some of them exceedingly well. Nowhere was I suggesting that people do academic research for the pure love and charity of giving stuff away fo…

So, here we have a model where the product is available for free while the creators somehow earn a living (probably by being domain experts or by knowing how to apply their "product" in the context of something more specifically revenue generating).

Journals are not free at all. While many get access to literature through JSTOR, or some similar service, just for being affiliated with a research institution in one form or another, it's not cheap for those outside of the system or for those providing you access to JSTOR. My point is that the "industry" of academic research is not giving anything away for free. It's a business just like any other business.

Re: Two innovative revenue models for a free piece of software

#20

Post by pcc »

BrentRitterbeck wrote: post #19
pcc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be an academic, with industrial research projects, for some time, so I'm relatively confident I understand how academia works. 1. I wasn't suggesting at all that academic research isn't paid for. Clearly the people doing the work somehow earn money and make a living, some of them exceedingly well. Nowhere was I suggesting that people do academic research for the pure love and charity of giving stuff away fo…

So, here we have a model where the product is available for free while the creators somehow earn a living (probably by being domain experts or by knowing how to apply their "product" in the context of something more specifically revenue generating). Journals are not free at all. While many get access to literature through JSTOR, or some similar service, just for being affiliated with a research institution in one for…

This just sounds like nitpicking, its like saying that open source authors are not really giving anything away for free because the person downloading the code is getting charged by his ISP for the broadband access.

Sure there is a business of distribution, of getting the product to you, but this has nothing to do with either the creation or the inherent value of the product itself.

For example, lets say you pay $10 or whatever to purchase via IEEE a pdf of a paper that details a new way of solving a specific problem with patch antennas. How does the value of those findings correlate with that $10?

Post reply on HN