Sounds similar to Setapp but with a broader audience / goal https://setapp.com/
SetApp is amazing, I'm using it on all my devices. It macOS, some apps are also available on iOS.
A world where people pay for software
281–290 of 543 posts
Re: A world where people pay for software
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've never paid for any of the work that went into Ubuntu, Python or Java (I use Corretto) or MySQL or C. You’ve almost certainly paid for them, just not directly. Some share of the cost in the supply chain that delivers you goods and services will inevitably end up with the large enterprises who sponsor or develop those projects.
by eliminating all actors on the stage and referring solely to "large enterprises", welded unequivocally to ".. who pay for this" the entire ecosystem is reduced to absurd oversimplification. It is both insulting to the others who participate, and bone-headed wrong about where "resources" come from in this unusual, modern ecosystem.
The assertion was that even if it doesn’t feel like it, you support open source indirectly.
It was not that all funding or contributions are made by large enterprises.
I applaud efforts to more directly support projects that give you utility. It’s becoming easier for individuals to do that (as evidenced by the article).
Re: A world where people pay for software
#283Actually I'm seeing a big new wave of open source projects that you can host yourself, but can be used as SaaS if you are willing to pay. I'm always paying because I don't want to bother and because the devs have my /respect
Re: A world where people pay for software
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At the very least it must be patched up with newly discovered security threats. I'd say at the very most it needs security updates. Too much software changes just to change. UI redesigns for the sake of redesign, cramming features that nobody wants so a product owner can get promoted, adding telemetry and analytics to chase metrics that no user cares about, adding annoying notifications and popups to juice "engagem…
> because developers gotta develop. You're touching on the real problem, here. Software isn't broken, it's just that the inherent issues in capital are starting to become painfully clear in this context. I've been trying to find a term for "behavior focused on maintaining your job when the need wouldn't exist without such behavior". It's kinda tangential to artificial scarcity but broader in scope, and if we don't ha…
> I've been trying to find a term for "behavior focused on maintaining your job when the need wouldn't exist without such behavior"
The concept of self-preservation or calling it superfluous self-preservation probably works here. But perhaps saying auto-preservation conveys better the sometimes lack of conscious intention that goes on in these situations.
Re: A world where people pay for software
#285> # Developers
> Sorry, there are no developers to subscribe to currently.
If you actually want adoption, more needs done than posting the thing you built and suggesting people use it. Building effective, self-sufficient marketplaces is tough. Benefit has to be seen on both sides from the get-go.
Re: A world where people pay for software
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where have you experienced data lockin? That sounds like poor SaaS strategies from the 2000s.
Fusion 360 is one example off the top of my head.
I think I would agree for large traditional software companies like Autodesk or Adobe that charged large sums for software versions you typically don't update yearly (Creative Cloud), that a flat subscription model seems to be a bad fit.
Probably less so for software you use daily or make your living off of.
Re: A world where people pay for software
#287Software has no marginal cost. You can make something that's used by untold millions of people. Even if many people pirate enough people won't for you to recoup your development cost and then some. Software is easier to produce, sell, and distribute than any physical product. You don't have to worry about warehouses filled with unsold inventory. You don't have to worry about quality control and returns. It still blow…
> Software is easier to produce, sell, and distribute than any physical product.
This is exactly why people should pay for software: consumption of physical goods destroys the planet. Money spent on software can't be spent on destroying the environment.
Ban ads*, make people pay for content and software and save the planet. Win-win-win.
* most of them anyways
Re: A world where people pay for software
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What if the person does make decent software, but is a huge influencer? Then they would probably be able to make more money selling subscriptions than other developers that are less known. I don't know how different that would be though from if they sold physical products. One important thing here is that there is a limit to how many subscriptions one developer can sell. This is done to emulate physical products as…
> I don't know how different that would be though from if they sold physical products I mean that's the literal point of this website, no? In the real world, a sale is a sale. Imagine going into BestBuy, leaving $100 at the front, telling the clerk to put it all into Sony (because Sony is 4 cool kidz) and then just grabbing a nVidia graphics card and Apple AirPods. > One important thing here is that there is a limit…
> I mean that's the literal point of this website, no? In the real world, a sale is a sale. Imagine going into BestBuy, leaving $100 at the front, telling the clerk to put it all into Sony (because Sony is 4 cool kidz) and then just grabbing a nVidia graphics card and Apple AirPods.
Ok, I see what you mean now. I think the distribution of who gets the money in 1Sub would be similar to donations, with two remedies:
- The owner of the paywall that made you subscribe gets a 10 credits bonus as described in [0]. This will lead to more money to the people who make the things that you actually try to use.
- If someone is popular, they will either run out of subscriptions to sell, or they will sell them at a higher price. In either case that makes it possible for the less known developers to sell more subscriptions.
Re: A world where people pay for software
#289Un-ironically, I make a living from people who pay for my software. I have for 30 years, as both a developer for hire, as an independent developer and even from royalties. It's not hard. Make something useful, make it well, place it where buyers can find it, and price it in a way that makes sense.
Re: A world where people pay for software
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At the very least it must be patched up with newly discovered security threats. I'd say at the very most it needs security updates. Too much software changes just to change. UI redesigns for the sake of redesign, cramming features that nobody wants so a product owner can get promoted, adding telemetry and analytics to chase metrics that no user cares about, adding annoying notifications and popups to juice "engagem…
> I'd say at the very most it needs security updates. and then you move the bar a little (although I agree): > Bugfixes only, please. I would also add updating to work with the current OS / hardware. (I have unusable games that are a recompile away from being usable.) But I agree with the rest of your points. Especially when, in addition to asking you to fund new features, the new features make the app worse for your…
Yea, I don't mean to target individual software developers here. "Developers gotta develop" is commentary on the entire industry, and all the contributors, including developers, UI designers, product owners, QA, executive sponsors. I remember hearing the saying "Programmers are like beavers. Leave a beaver alone to decide what to do and they'll just keep building dams, regardless of the fact that their home is done." I don't know if that's really true about beavers, but it's true about software organizations. The whole software development team will just continue working on the software even long past the point where they're done.