11–20 of 177 posts
He means "free service", which is a radically different scenario from "free software" in either sense, and should be treated as such.
Whether we're talking about Free software or just freeware, the user's use of a normal piece of software on their computer doesn't suddenly disappear when the developer goes away.
The issue of BigCo's closing useful small services just to harvest the developers post acquisition is certainly a valid one that's worthy of debate. However, the premise that this only happens because the startup in question was "free" doesn't hold weight. Call me a cynic but the recommendation to use "paid-for" services only to avoid this outcome just seems a little too self-serving to paid-for-only service PinBoard…
Seeing Pinboard's success was really helpful in getting over the sick feeling of charging a sea of free, and I think we're finally seeing a non-trivial amount of web users understand that if you're not the customer, you're the product (after they've been burned a time or twelve). Great post, and glad to see a lot of other Hacker Newser following suit.
Using google to search doesn't make me a "product". They just happen to be able to make a ton of money showing adverts, which are useful for me also.
Ignore advertising revenue at your own cost.
But OTOH, this is hackernews, so continue hating advertising lead business models as usual...
He keeps saying "free software", and also says "anti-free software movement". He means "free service", which is a radically different scenario from "free software" in either sense, and should be treated as such. Whether we're talking about Free software or just freeware, the user's use of a normal piece of software on their computer doesn't suddenly disappear when the developer goes away.
See Flickr or YouTube or PayPal or Skype or Picnik or Grand Central or Picasa or Siri or mySpace or FriendFeed or FeedBurner or even pinboard's biggest competitor Delicious for examples of the latter.
As for the former, there's an unlimited number of examples (for a few, try http://techcrunch.com/tag/deadpool/)
Unfortunately, $7/month from a few people can't keep things afloat.
As someone that runs a paid service, I can tell you it's awesome to interact with customers. There's an air of respect that you don't get from completely open products.
You haven't run into the ones that think that because they shelled out $15, you are their personal butler?
To partly rebut what maciej is saying here, I'd point out that Backblaze is a very successful not-free service which was also courting purchase offers; paying for a service is no guarantee that you'll get to rely on that service forever, which is a major failing of web-based services in general (and a frequently-mentioned point from my clients when I suggest using some web-based service or another). But I mostly agre…
The issue of BigCo's closing useful small services just to harvest the developers post acquisition is certainly a valid one that's worthy of debate. However, the premise that this only happens because the startup in question was "free" doesn't hold weight. Call me a cynic but the recommendation to use "paid-for" services only to avoid this outcome just seems a little too self-serving to paid-for-only service PinBoard…
I believe the point is less about revenue being a guarantee that it won't happen and more about the fact that a lack of profit makes it increasingly likely that the product will eventually be shuttered because free isn't a sustainable model.
I doubt Friendfeed makes Facebook any money, and was clearly a talent acquisition (Bret is their CTO now) but they still keep it running.
You're right that anyone using any tool/service with an unsustainable model needs to be cautious. But there's a lot more to it then is being proposed by the OP.
The hard part is figuring out how to charge an arm and a leg for open source software. However, everyone take the easy way out by closing down on mission critical and open source the rest.
I thought of a possible solution that allow everyone to charge an arm and leg while still being open source, or even public domain. Mainly, I am inspired by the kickstarter idea, but I am less interested in curating projects for one time event and more interested in business model automation.
Here how it would works:
You have a webcomic and you have an ever expanding archive of past comic strips. However, the next comic strip, already finished, is not available. To make the comic strip available, you ask for a collective donation of 100 dollars. Some donate 1 dollars, others 20 dollars, until the money is raised. This ensure that you will get paid every step of the way while your comic archive acts as advertising.
The value for my users is the automation of numerous drudgery involved with the business model. That included tracking who donate what, tracking the deadline, the release, and so on. With an API for the service, people can get especially creative with how they release, or how they incentivize their customers.
Another twist to this idea is sponsorship by advertisers and allowing advertisers getting involved with the fundraising process. They can aid the fundraising in either matching user donations or offering discounts.
Of course, this will be just another idea if nobody took any effort in building the service and nobody will attempt this business model, easily. I am working on it, but it's more of a half-baked project on some private repos somewhere rather than a serious startup.