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

GitHub Sponsors

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 516 posts

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#211

Post by anchpop »

thinkingemote wrote: post #89

This is also about making developers behave. If you want to get paid on GitHub you shouldn't commit anything controversial and you have to behave on the site. If they go full Twitch then they could take into consideration your actions outside the site. including posts on social media or at conferences. So we would first see those wikileak dumps, code leaks and vulnerability repos being got rid of first, then we might…

The reason Twitch does all that stuff is because they are beholden to advertisers and nobody wants to be advertising on "the site with all the white nationalists" or whatever, it isn't a good look. Github doesn't have that issue since they do not have a model based on advertising

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#212

Post by diggan »

dangjc wrote: post #199
0xffff2 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>GitHub will not charge fees for GitHub Sponsors. And to celebrate the launch, we’ll cover payment processing costs for the first year, too! One-hundred percent of your sponsorship goes to the developer. My reading is that they're only going to forgo the fees for the first year, and after that it's going to be basically similar to Patreon in terms of where the money goes.

Maybe they meant credit card interchange fees of 1-3%?

If there is money being moved around on GitHub's platform, you can be sure that they are interested in grabbing a piece of it. Otherwise, why not integrate with existing open platforms?

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#213

Post by diggan »

naikrovek wrote: post #177
diggan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why would they create a dependency on an open service (that could disappear at any moment) when they could roll their own? Because by creating the dependency on an open service and collaborating with them, they help them survive long term and to not disappear at any moment. Yes, it's nice that "it just works" but sometimes the easiest way of doing something doesn't mean it's the right way. Especially when it comes…

Having worked with human beings before, I would say that it is considerably easier and more predictable if you just do some things yourself. Working with folks outside of your employ (even if you pay them good money to do the work) will fail you far more often than working with one or more of your own employees. I can't blame GitHub for doing this completely in-house.

Sure, the easy way is easier. But more often than not, the easiest way is not the best way for the entire ecosystem.

Rather than saying "How can we get money moving around on our platform as soon as possible?" they should have asked "How can we make open source work sustainable?".

But who can blame them really, it's a for-profit and closed source company on every level.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#214

Post by [deleted] »

0xffff2 wrote: post #194
fesoliveira wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that they will only take a payment processing fee, unlike other services that charge a cut from the payment in order to pay for their services, or at least that is what it says for now.

>Keep in mind that they will only take a payment processing fee, unlike other services that charge a cut from the payment in order to pay for their services... How are those different exactly?

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#215

Post by some_random »

0xffff2 wrote: post #190
usrusr wrote: post #116

I think it's a very compelling deal: under the patreon model (company takes a cut to fund the funding mechanism), the "platform tax" is a permanent sore that makes donating feel less good than it could. Am I giving to the cause or am I giving to the platform? An independent zero fee platform run entirely on altruism will always be in the edge of failure, with one of the failure modes being transfer to untrustworthy o…

>GitHub will not charge fees for GitHub Sponsors. And to celebrate the launch, we’ll cover payment processing costs for the first year, too! One-hundred percent of your sponsorship goes to the developer. My reading is that they're only going to forgo the fees for the first year, and after that it's going to be basically similar to Patreon in terms of where the money goes.

From a few pages deeper: >In the future, we may charge a nominal processing fee.

That might be where they're headed, but from their diction I'm guessing they plan to try and keep this part of their business cost neutral. Who knows, maybe this is part of the ol' embrace extend extinguish, but I'm guessing they value the goodwill above the money in this case.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#216

Post by gilbetron »

benatkin wrote: post #209

Not so fast. People have said this about gittip (now Gratipay), Patreon, Twitch, and now YouTube and Facebook. All of these have been mixed blessings. Here's an article about how Patreon doesn't work out even when everything goes smoothly: https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-pa... "After launching my Patreon, I struggled for months to find work. Patreon filled my downtime, and became a full time…

I am wary of the excitement as well, but there's a bit difference: corporations. Spending $20/month on a patreon is entirely different than spending the same on a library I make heavy use of at my job. I can easily convince my boss to do that; that type of money isn't even "noise" for most companies!

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#217

Post by SquishyPanda23 »

I have been curious for a while what Microsoft plans for LinkedIn and GitHub.

It seems like one possible future here is that open source becomes less like passion projects that scratch an itch and more like driving for Uber.

Maybe that is good. Maybe GitHub just took a step toward becoming Fiverr. I really don't know.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#218

Post by toopricey »

benatkin wrote: post #209

Not so fast. People have said this about gittip (now Gratipay), Patreon, Twitch, and now YouTube and Facebook. All of these have been mixed blessings. Here's an article about how Patreon doesn't work out even when everything goes smoothly: https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-pa... "After launching my Patreon, I struggled for months to find work. Patreon filled my downtime, and became a full time…

I expect this to be a loss leader for them, rather than something they're planning to monetize. So they can probably run it with pretty minimal fees

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#219

Post by derefr »

benatkin wrote: post #209

Not so fast. People have said this about gittip (now Gratipay), Patreon, Twitch, and now YouTube and Facebook. All of these have been mixed blessings. Here's an article about how Patreon doesn't work out even when everything goes smoothly: https://theoutline.com/post/2571/no-one-makes-a-living-on-pa... "After launching my Patreon, I struggled for months to find work. Patreon filled my downtime, and became a full time…

Who’s making a living on Patreon? The same people who make a living on Kickstarter, or via “gift” transfers through PayPal (before that was clamped down upon): people who can pull in whale patrons/backers.

Certain verticals have more whale patrons than others. The common story is that if you’re an artist and you want to go where the whale patrons are, that’s—for some reason—art targeting the furry subculture. That’s as true for patronage as it is for doing commissions.

It’s unlikely that you can just do what you’re doing and make a living off of Patreon; but if you want to shape what you’re doing based off of what will attract wealthy patrons, it’s pretty easy to find niches where your skills will translate to dollars.

Post reply on HN