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

On paying for software

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 279 posts

Re: On paying for software

#251

Post by afarrell »

carapace wrote: post #236
afarrell wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Charging people to use your solution after it's been developed is the stupid thing to do, IMO I think this is the core of what I disagree with in your post. Imagine 3 scenarios: 1) I have a problem that I'd like solved and I go searching for a solution. After a while, I come across a reddit post where someone says "oh, you're trying to reticulate splines? You should buy ReticulatorPro for $50. I use it and its grea…

> In the world you propose, option #1 is impossible. You can still send $50 to the creator of ReticulatorPro? But that's not quite your point, is it? You're saying that I, as a developer, should be able to work on a product that doesn't have enough qualified demand (pre-sales or crowd-funds) upfront to pay for its development costs, and expect to cover my gamble by requiring customers to give me money before allowing…

Correct.

Re: On paying for software

#252

Post by justinclift »

ghaff wrote: post #228
copesc wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sindre Sorhus has a successful Patreon as well: https://www.patreon.com/sindresorhus but he's kind of a unicorn (pun intended). I am sure this would not work for everyone.

And $3500 per month is not what a lot (most?) people here would consider a successful financial model even given some consulting etc. on top of that. It depends on where you live of course but bringing in $50K per year (with no benefits) or so in donations is not something a lot of professionals--especially those qualified to work for major software companies--would consider a sustainable income stream.

He looks to be located in Bangkok:

https://github.com/sindresorhus/ama/issues/414#issuecomment-...

The creator of Vue.js (in sibling comment) has a Patreon account with a monthly income of $US15k+ (at time of writing this).

That seems to be more in line with "standard" professional rates. :)

Re: On paying for software

#253

Post by RandomCSGeek »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #184
dalbasal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great point. No one wants to be ripped off. Software basically can't be objectively priced. You might be selling £50k per seat software that competes with £50, or free. It sucks to be making that decision.

>Software basically can't be objectively priced. // Can anything be objectively priced, how?

I can buy apples at a somewhat objective price by comparing the price provided by other sellers in nearby stores. Also the price will be mostly affected by supply vs demand.

OTOH, softwares prices can be affected by too many parameters.

Then again, IT industry is a child when compared to say, mechanical or Civil industries.

Re: On paying for software

#254

Post by ttoinou »

Torwald wrote: post #230
ttoinou wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes of course. As long as we have electricity in our brains we can store and process information. The very precise implementation of this would require to study biology (it's already interesting to see that we run on electricity like computers!).

Ok, cool, now, how is the number eight, for instance. Does it exist only because human brains have it in it? Or do numbers exist in the universe outside our brains? Can we answer this? This would be an important step in IP rights and all that…

It's a whole philosophical question...I would say yes maths and humans abstractions exist independently !

Re: On paying for software

#255

Post by gkya »

jcoffland wrote: post #154
justinclift wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can we please dispense with this notion and start realizing one simple fact: people will typically only pay for something if you make them pay. Things to appear to be changing for the better though. As an examply, Gina Häußge is working full time on OctoPrint (3D printing software) supported entirely by donations: https://www.patreon.com/foosel There are probably others too, I'm just not aware of them and have only…

Gina Häußge is the only one making reasonable money on Patron for a software project, last I checked. I exchanged several emails with her about this very topic. Despite her success in fund raising, even she was concerned about the long-term viability of this sort of funding. I also am the author of an active Open-Source project. I accept donations but they have never amounted to much.

The recurring online payments/donations economy is just starting out. Give it some time to pick up steam and get a better UI, I believe it will become more popular.

Re: On paying for software

#256

Post by gkya »

jcrben wrote: post #136
cup-of-tea wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the... You could donate to the FSF, OSI, or directly to the developers of most projects. Did you even bother looking?

If you donate, there's no guarantee that everyone else is donating. So you end up supporting the free riders ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem ). Which is a disincentive to donate.

No, you support the person you donate to. That the "free-riders" are supported too is only a secondary thing. The main aim of FOSS is to share intellectual effort with the world anyways.

Re: On paying for software

#257

Post by gkya »

ttoinou wrote: post #128
bachmeier wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by owning the codebase I can protect myself from a larger player copying my work I find this statement confusing. In what sense do you not "own" your codebase if you release it under the GPL? And if the software is released under the GPL, large players have no advantage, because they have to release all of the changes they make to your code if they're using it to compete against you. What you're saying is that rest…

In what sense do you not "own" your codebase if you release it under the GPL? There is no concept of property for information. By hiding your source codebase and the way it is being built (the same logic applies to your DAW music project, your video software editing file project etc...) you are making life harder for people who try to replicate features of your software, understand techniques behind it or pretend to…

There is very little in the world of software that's hard to replicate. And there's almost nothing that does not have any F/OSS alternatives.

Re: On paying for software

#258

Post by _pfxa »

mherrmann wrote: post #9

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linking to this post: https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/

You release fman on Linux, so you use at least some open source libraries. I wonder which ones are those and what is your policy of transferring a share of your earnings from your project to them.

Also I suggest anybody using this software with a paid subscription to evaluate this bit from the EULA:

> fman is provided as-is. You are using it at your sole risk. We give no warranty of any kind. You agree that we shall not be liable for any damages related to fman.

Source: https://fman.io/eula

Also, stop this FUD already. Anybody can release software however they want, free, libre or not, but this attitude that I quote from your link is plain wrong.

> We all like free stuff. But in a world where everything is free, we are the product.

We're talking about FOSS software here, not about Facebook or Google. If you don't want people "bashing a little guy who's trying to innovate", you can quit spreading misinformation about people whose gratutiuous libraries and kernels you use (yes every platform you release to uses FOSS somewhere).

Re: On paying for software

#259

Post by _pfxa »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #14
mherrmann wrote: post #9

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linking to this post: https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/

Interesting that you got downvotes for a statement like this on a forum supposedly rooted in the business of software.

The content of the link is FUD. He portrays FOSS as if it was like the exploitation schemes the ad supported free stuff, saying: "But in a world where everything is free, we are the product."

I did downvote him, although I'd not disagree with him (or anyone else) preferring to produce closed-source software. He could've justified himself w/o telling lies about the other side.

Re: On paying for software

#260

Post by dingaling »

jcrben wrote: post #136
cup-of-tea wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the... You could donate to the FSF, OSI, or directly to the developers of most projects. Did you even bother looking?

If you donate, there's no guarantee that everyone else is donating. So you end up supporting the free riders ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem ). Which is a disincentive to donate.

I conducted dozens of software evaluation and procurement rounds for a ${BIGCORP}

One of the factors that made FOSS much more promotable was a sticker-price for acquisition and / or support. The actual amount didn't matter, psychologically though it needed to show that it had 'worth'. Ifnitnwas free, the business was worried thatvit was just someone's weekend hack. If it cost $5 per user then it was great value.

Not once did anyone raise the free-rider problem when we paid for FOSS. Frankly businesses are so focused on getting stuff done internally that the fact that someone else might indirectly benefit is irrelevant.

Post reply on HN