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

Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

kite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 547 posts

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#261

Post by hsuduebc2 »

irrational wrote: post #247
LASR wrote: post #235

> Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. I know this first hand, building a developer tool startup and failing to reach any level of revenue. In the end, the tech was bought out by a larger company to recover a fraction of our VC investment. The challenge is that when you're building software for developers, they already know how it must work. It's like trying to sell magic tricks to magici…

I’m a web developer. My company pays for JetBrains IntelliJ for me. And I love it. But, if I had to pay for it out of my own pocket, I’d use VS Code instead. I’ve used both and IntelliJ is superior to VS Code, but not to such an extent that I would pay my own money for it. But I’m more than happy to have my company buy it for me.

It is very cheap compared to what developers usually earns.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#262

Post by [deleted] »

javajosh wrote: post #255
andyfleming wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a product that I actually _would_ pay for as an individual. It's reasonably priced and worth the increase in efficiency and better experience. Plus their pricing is fair and flexible.

Yes, it seems fair to me to spend real money on Jetbrain's tools, if you like them. It is strange how reluctant programmers are to spend on tools even though they are, as a rule, quite willing to let themselves be paid handsomely for their services. Yet graphic designers pay for Adobe's tools. Who can read this riddle?

[deleted]

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#263

Post by canadianfella »

LASR wrote: post #235

> Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. I know this first hand, building a developer tool startup and failing to reach any level of revenue. In the end, the tech was bought out by a larger company to recover a fraction of our VC investment. The challenge is that when you're building software for developers, they already know how it must work. It's like trying to sell magic tricks to magici…

I’m not a programmer and I pay for github copilot. For me it is worth the productivity boost - even if I just make things for fun.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#264

Post by dlkf »

> Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough.

What sounds more plausible you:

- engineering managers hate free money

- it’s obvious to everyone that this statistic is bullshit

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#265

Post by grepLeigh »

sanjayio wrote: post #207
grepLeigh wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious to hear about services/tools developers do pay for. The diagnosis that developers do not pay for tools seems off to me. A few tools that I put on the company card when I worked at a Big Tech Co as an IC: * DataGrip (Jet brains) * Colab Pro (Google) * Postman Pro These were all small $ enough where I didn't need to justify the expense. It was just assumed that if I thought the tool was worth the $, it w…

I think “company card” is the differentiating point here. I’m not sure how many IC devs have access to that. Which makes me think you don’t fall into the group that they’ve defined as IC.

I started getting purchasing authority around the senior level, when I also had some amount of hiring authority. Even if you don't have a company card, there's typically a process where you can get reimbursed for expenses.

If you are an IC reading this and have never tried to expense a tool you find valuable, give it a shot. You might end up surprised at how much management appreciates the ability to trade money for business value.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#266

Post by TheGeminon »

javajosh wrote: post #255
andyfleming wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a product that I actually _would_ pay for as an individual. It's reasonably priced and worth the increase in efficiency and better experience. Plus their pricing is fair and flexible.

Yes, it seems fair to me to spend real money on Jetbrain's tools, if you like them. It is strange how reluctant programmers are to spend on tools even though they are, as a rule, quite willing to let themselves be paid handsomely for their services. Yet graphic designers pay for Adobe's tools. Who can read this riddle?

I think it’s because the free and OSS tools are of such a high quality for developers. There is a much bigger chasm between GIMP and Photoshop than there is between VS Code (with plugins) and JetBrains.

It’s hard for many to get over the fact that JetBrains is infinitely more expensive than VS code in dollar terms.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#267

Post by mythz »

irrational wrote: post #247
LASR wrote: post #235

> Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. I know this first hand, building a developer tool startup and failing to reach any level of revenue. In the end, the tech was bought out by a larger company to recover a fraction of our VC investment. The challenge is that when you're building software for developers, they already know how it must work. It's like trying to sell magic tricks to magici…

I’m a web developer. My company pays for JetBrains IntelliJ for me. And I love it. But, if I had to pay for it out of my own pocket, I’d use VS Code instead. I’ve used both and IntelliJ is superior to VS Code, but not to such an extent that I would pay my own money for it. But I’m more than happy to have my company buy it for me.

JetBrains IDE's is the most notable exception of dev tools I personally pay for, insane value and productivity makes it a no-brainer purchase given its instant ROI from time saved. Life's too short to not maximize your productivity for a few $'s.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#268

Post by [deleted] »

LASR wrote: post #235

> Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for tools. I know this first hand, building a developer tool startup and failing to reach any level of revenue. In the end, the tech was bought out by a larger company to recover a fraction of our VC investment. The challenge is that when you're building software for developers, they already know how it must work. It's like trying to sell magic tricks to magici…

[deleted]

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#269

Post by qwerty456127 »

mythz wrote: post #267
irrational wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a web developer. My company pays for JetBrains IntelliJ for me. And I love it. But, if I had to pay for it out of my own pocket, I’d use VS Code instead. I’ve used both and IntelliJ is superior to VS Code, but not to such an extent that I would pay my own money for it. But I’m more than happy to have my company buy it for me.

JetBrains IDE's is the most notable exception of dev tools I personally pay for, insane value and productivity makes it a no-brainer purchase given its instant ROI from time saved. Life's too short to not maximize your productivity for a few $'s.

JetBrains is a great example. People pay them because the product is by far the best and the cost is reasonably humble. I think it wouldn't make the same total revenue if they were selling it for twice the price.

Re: Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code

#270

Post by capitalsigma »

javajosh wrote: post #255
andyfleming wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a product that I actually _would_ pay for as an individual. It's reasonably priced and worth the increase in efficiency and better experience. Plus their pricing is fair and flexible.

Yes, it seems fair to me to spend real money on Jetbrain's tools, if you like them. It is strange how reluctant programmers are to spend on tools even though they are, as a rule, quite willing to let themselves be paid handsomely for their services. Yet graphic designers pay for Adobe's tools. Who can read this riddle?

Because developers want to be able to hack on their own tools: fix bugs, add features, whatever. Graphics designers do not have the skills to hack on their own tools, so there isn't a huge population of them sitting around going "damn, I wish I had feature X -- I know, I'll build my own editor and open source it!"
Post reply on HN