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

241–250 of 516 posts

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#241

Post by hanniabu »

mherrmann wrote: post #229
devonzuegel wrote: post #158

Hi, I’m Devon the product manager behind GitHub Sponsors. We’re excited to launch the beta program today and learn how we can best serve the community. It’s great to already see the conversation on this thread! We’re eager to hear all of your feedback, and feel free to email me at devonzuegel@github.com as well.

Hi Devon, I posted this comment elsewhere in this thread [1], but now feel that here is a better place to write it: It would be very cool if there was an easy way to sponsor all the projects I've starred. Then I could just pay (say) $10 per month to "support open source", without having to worry about any of the details such as picking projects. If you as GitHub then also reach out to the project maintainers and say…

This would be a nice feature, less overhead for the donator too as the amount donated can automatically be split up among all of your starred projects. Bonus points to offset a sponsor dashboard where you can use a slider to change the percentage splits. In the future a budget feature can be added for sponsored projects and this dashboard can show which projects haven't yet met their budget for the month or quarter, similar to the banners that show on wikipedia, "this is an open source project and need x amount in order to keep operations going smoothly, if everyone donates y amount that will fund development for z time period."

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#242

Post by hanniabu »

dangjc wrote: post #202
devonzuegel wrote: post #158

Hi, I’m Devon the product manager behind GitHub Sponsors. We’re excited to launch the beta program today and learn how we can best serve the community. It’s great to already see the conversation on this thread! We’re eager to hear all of your feedback, and feel free to email me at devonzuegel@github.com as well.

Will this support micro payments like $1 or even $0.10 a month? Or would credit card fees eat all that up?

Would be great if they could get Stripe on board with this and support 0 fees due to the application.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#243

Post by hanniabu »

diggan wrote: post #186
devonzuegel wrote: post #158

Hi, I’m Devon the product manager behind GitHub Sponsors. We’re excited to launch the beta program today and learn how we can best serve the community. It’s great to already see the conversation on this thread! We’re eager to hear all of your feedback, and feel free to email me at devonzuegel@github.com as well.

Hello there Devon! I'd be interested to hear what the main reasons for not either a) building on top of existing open platforms (like OpenCollective) or b) doing your own service but building it open source and as a open platform? Also, once the one year period is over, how are you planning to setup the fee structure?

This would be nice if there was some integration between the two.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#244

Post by raphlinus »

I am cautiously optimistic about this. I recently built a prototype GPU-based 2D renderer which I think has huge potential, but obviously also needs quite a bit of work to become a real product. I've been considering various kinds of hybrid open source business models, where there's a free part but also parts people pay for. I'm pretty sure that can fly, but I'm also hesitating at the idea of spending a huge amount of my time and energy on building a business - I want to concentrate on the tech itself. If I can get close to paying cost of living through sponsorship, that's pretty appealing.

For this to really fly, though, needs to come revenue streams from businesses who depend on open source, rather than other individuals. I'm hopeful this can get there.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#245

Post by hanniabu »

hanniabu wrote: post #241
mherrmann wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Devon, I posted this comment elsewhere in this thread [1], but now feel that here is a better place to write it: It would be very cool if there was an easy way to sponsor all the projects I've starred. Then I could just pay (say) $10 per month to "support open source", without having to worry about any of the details such as picking projects. If you as GitHub then also reach out to the project maintainers and say…

This would be a nice feature, less overhead for the donator too as the amount donated can automatically be split up among all of your starred projects. Bonus points to offset a sponsor dashboard where you can use a slider to change the percentage splits. In the future a budget feature can be added for sponsored projects and this dashboard can show which projects haven't yet met their budget for the month or quarter,…

This dashboard could also have suggestions for sponsoring projects that you either forked or use as a dependency in your project.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#246

Post by benatkin »

netok wrote: post #237
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…

Patreon only takes a 5% cut.

That's unsustainable. Patreon is trying to increase their cut. Currently their recommended plan is at 8%: https://www.patreon.com/product/pricing

They make it look like the extra 3% is to build features for their platform, but the VC funding is for that, and other than developing the feature, having tiers doesn't cost them anything. Charging 8% just makes it a bit closer to being sustainable.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#247

Post by osd »

patcon wrote: post #231
Kalium wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems what they are planning to offer is not better nor different than what others already are providing (see OpenCollective or LiberaPay). It's got a major company with deep and signficant expertise in security, payments, and accouting. A name that people and companies already trust with a raft of compliance all handled already. It might just be me, but if I were to speculate I would guess that OpenCollective and…

> It's got a major company with deep and signficant expertise in security, payments, and accouting. A name that people and companies already trust with a raft of compliance all handled already. Yes, and they are absolutely _robbing_ the opportunity from others to build in this space, when there are already some really capable players who would have gotten somewhere great. This is a total asshole, closed source compan…

Your comment reads that you're angry at Github for not taking a more open source approach. That's a fine opinion to have, but it doesn't make sense to demonize them for being a for-profit company. They are not robbing anyone of anything.

Starving the competition with loss-leader tactics is not an unbeatable strategy. If, however, you don't have anything to offer other than a run of the mill payment processing platform, then yea, you're going to have a tough time beating someone who can cut costs. They have a feature you don't, you should lose.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#248

Post by simias »

benatkin wrote: post #246
netok wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patreon only takes a 5% cut.

That's unsustainable. Patreon is trying to increase their cut. Currently their recommended plan is at 8%: https://www.patreon.com/product/pricing They make it look like the extra 3% is to build features for their platform, but the VC funding is for that, and other than developing the feature, having tiers doesn't cost them anything. Charging 8% just makes it a bit closer to being sustainable.

How is that unsustainable? What are they spending that money on?

Isn't it only unsustainable for VCs who want 10e50% growth ever three days?

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#249

Post by Kalium »

patcon wrote: post #231
Kalium wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems what they are planning to offer is not better nor different than what others already are providing (see OpenCollective or LiberaPay). It's got a major company with deep and signficant expertise in security, payments, and accouting. A name that people and companies already trust with a raft of compliance all handled already. It might just be me, but if I were to speculate I would guess that OpenCollective and…

> It's got a major company with deep and signficant expertise in security, payments, and accouting. A name that people and companies already trust with a raft of compliance all handled already. Yes, and they are absolutely _robbing_ the opportunity from others to build in this space, when there are already some really capable players who would have gotten somewhere great. This is a total asshole, closed source compan…

What kind of critical engagement do you think we are failing to offer? What kind of response would leave you thinking "This person engaged critically with the issue at hand, but still came away with a strongly positive position"?

For my own part, I don't think anybody is owed a position in a space. I also don't think the existence of small players that get displaced by a big player means that the small players were destined to become big players. It's worth considering that LiberaPay and OpenCollective would never have gotten somewhere great. Perhaps they would always have been doomed to be small and essentially irrelevant. We'll never know, obviously, but it's worth considering.

But let's talk about OpenCollective and how Github could have worked with them. Do you think OpenCollective would have passed a security audit? Are they SOC compliant? Could they have handle the scale?

An even more interesting question: has Github ever claimed to be an OPEN company? I'm certainly not aware of such, though of course my knowledge is less than comprehensive. Charging them with failing to be something that they've never claimed to be seems odd.

Yes. Your charge is correct in an important detail. Github isn't an open source company. As far as I can tell they never have been. It's perhaps somewhat less than maximally reasonable to expect them to become one.

For my own part, this enhances my positive feelings about Microsoft running Github. They're making changes to popularize the idea that it's OK to pay developers to do open source, and doing so in a way that lets developers get paid in a manner of their choice.

It could still be an open platform, of course. Someone just needs to be able to do it better than Github. As Dependabot shows, that's absolutely possible.

Re: GitHub Sponsors

#250

Post by kodablah »

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…

> All of these have been mixed blessings. Here's an article about how Patreon doesn't work out even when everything goes smoothly

Sure, all experiences are not positive, especially when you view it through a micro lens. But if you view this through a macro lens on software development in general, just as if you view YouTube content producer monetization on consumable video at an industry level, you'll find that non-traditional financial monetization of these digital efforts has a significant impact on what was there previously.

Post reply on HN