311–320 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is the difference from paying up front? There there's even less incentives to fix bugs, fix broken functionality and god forbid new functionality.
You buy what is offered (and a support period in most cases). Not a promise. No one buys a consumer car and expects it to run on water the next month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has not been my experience at all with SaaS. I find SaaS products, including ones I have paid for, disappear at a much greater rate than the rate at which the desktop tools they replaced stop working. There's also next to nothing I can do as an end user when they do disappear. If I'm very lucky, I get a limited window to be able to export a portion of my data. But we've eroded data formats to the point where eve…
SaaS from established firms seems to be more durable & maintained. The problem is all the flash in the pan ZIRP VC funded never-profit SaaS startups out there. Hopefully these get shaken out over the next couple years finally. For example, I've used Adobe products for a very long time, and they get a lot of flack. I was an extensive user of Photoshop (PS) and Lightroom (LR) for a long time. However, the old model was…
We buy thousands of items and for most people it’s impossible to know how much something “should” cost. So we anchor our expectations to what we know.
Web software was mostly free for years because it was either ad-supported or a speculative venture capital investment. Or a dev releasing it for free thinking that “if we get lots of users we can raise money and figure out monetization later”. The Social Network came out in 2009 and there’s a scene where Zuckerberg was made to look like a genius for rejecting monetization. People who wanted to be like Zuckerberg made stuff for free then hoped to raise money. Finally add in many developers made software for free for personal or ideological reasons.
The end result is that consumers are psychologically anchored to expect that web software “should” be free, an app “should” cost $1 at most, etc It’s not really about the $10 as much as people don’t like feeling ripped off and paying $10 for something that should cost nothing makes them feel ripped off.
An experience is burned into my brain when a friend who was an aspiring yoga teacher was doing a Twitch stream for 10k viewers as part of an online festival but at the last moment needed to stream to Twitch from his iPhone. There was an app that worked perfectly that cost $15 but he almost sabotaged his whole show frantically searching the App Store for a free alternative because $15 was a ripoff. He caved eventually and unhappily, then to celebrate the stream led friends and family to a sushi restaurant that was $200/person . It was never about his inability to afford $15 but his psychological feeling that a $15 app is a ripoff. But fancy sushi “should” be expensive so $200 is a fair price.
We are very slowly seeing this change as interest rates rise and everyone understands software monetization better but it’s a gradual process. For whatever reason it’s often devs themselves who push back the hardest against monetization, in their warped world view someone charging $10/mo for a SaaS is deeply unethical but going to work for some FAANG company and fighting hard to maximize TC is completely fine and in fact encouraged. That way your boss worries about monetization and you are free of any moral qualms about it. FAANG devs complaining about subscriptions, privacy , and paywalls are quite common and similar to vegetarians who only eat beef and pork but avoid eating cows or pigs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand correctly, you are not getting one piece of software. You get access to everything in their library, like a spotify subscription. You also choose which developer gets your $5 or whatever, so you retain the meritocratic infrastructure that a traditional marketplace provides.
Now that you mention it, the spotify subscription is actually very interesting here. A bundled subscription for all the software you use could make sense (though it would probably by 10-100x the cost of a spotify subscription). However, OP's resource allocation model (each user determines which developer gets their payment) doesn't make sense to me. I think it would be better to prototype multiple resource allocation…
I could maaaaaybe see it working on iphone, a premium apps service, where they have a lot more control
This is my project, so if you have questions, I can answer them in this thread.
- What do you expect open source developers to charge at minimum for access to the catalog in order to make this make sense to do at all? If people subscribe once and access everything, it seems like they'd need to charge a lot to make it a worthwhile co-op to participate in. It feels like the amount they would have to charge would become pretty financially restrictive to access the code and not in the interests of s…
> If people subscribe once and access everything, it seems like they'd need to charge a lot to make it a worthwhile co-op to participate in.
I have thought about this a bit and yes, when this thing grows, the subscriptions will be worth more and more. I haven't really done any calculations though because it's really hard to know what things will be like. Anyway, let's try one:
Let's say there are 100 developers (individuals) and a developer wants $4000 per month. Then if we want a subscription to be $5 per month or maybe we could allow it to be $10, the number of subscribers per developer would have to be 100 * 4000 / 10 / 100 or just 4000/10 = 400. So I guess as long as the number of subscribers are a few hundreds times more than the number of developers (individuals), it could work.
> - How does this handle the scenario of a developer disappearing?
Interesting question; I have not thought about that. Developers register and unregister the subscriptions so hopefully they would unregister their subscriptions before they disappear. If they don't do that, it could be forced by the system but there would have to be rules about that then so everybody knows what will happen.
> Does the developer have the ability to remove access to the catalog from specific subscribers?
Yes, they can register and unregister subscriptions as much as they want.
> If the developers have the ability to remove subscribers at will, doesn't this disincentivize paying at all because paying gives you no security in your access you just bought? What is your plan to arbitrate this without access to primary payment information to confirm who is right?
That is between the buyer and the seller. If you buy something and you don't get what you bought, you would try to solve that with the seller. Of cource people can complain to 1Sub too and then maybe the other developers will lose trust in that developer and they can be kicked out.
> - It seems like although decentralized, this approximates to the journal model but for code? Is this your intention?
I have not thought much about the journal model but I can see how this is similar. My main vision has been tax that everyone who wants to be a citizen pays so that they then can enjoy things that are not sold directly to people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has not been my experience at all with SaaS. I find SaaS products, including ones I have paid for, disappear at a much greater rate than the rate at which the desktop tools they replaced stop working. There's also next to nothing I can do as an end user when they do disappear. If I'm very lucky, I get a limited window to be able to export a portion of my data. But we've eroded data formats to the point where eve…
SaaS from established firms seems to be more durable & maintained. The problem is all the flash in the pan ZIRP VC funded never-profit SaaS startups out there. Hopefully these get shaken out over the next couple years finally. For example, I've used Adobe products for a very long time, and they get a lot of flack. I was an extensive user of Photoshop (PS) and Lightroom (LR) for a long time. However, the old model was…
Google is infamous for shutting down services. And the same thing regularly happens even to large companies when they get acquired by even larger companies who then shut down their existing services and try to force migrate everyone to the parent's offering.
Conversely, stalwarts like Oracle and IBM will often continue providing a service indefinitely. For a price. Because once you're locked in they're happy to keep taking your money. All of your money. Forever. This is... differently terrible?
> the old model was - PS pay $600 once, then $200 for updates every 2 years or so.
But many people would just keep using the original version indefinitely. Paying $800 once is a lot less than paying $150/year until you die. It also lets you choose whether you want to pay more for the new features or save money because you don't need them.
And you can't use the Consumer Price Index for software because software inflation is negative. As more people get computers over time the size of the market increases but the fixed cost of developing the software is the same, so the amortized unit cost goes down and in a competitive market that gets passed on to the customer. In the 90s people paid money for Unix and zip utilities and web browsers and now they're all free because they have such a big market that the unit cost is effectively zero.
SaaS things remain not because they don't follow the same cost structure but because lock-in through proprietary formats and training costs and migration costs keep people stuck on the thing they started with, which in turn keeps competitors from achieving the scale needed to get prices down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have to pay their recurring revenue if you want them to stay in business and keep the lights on so you can use their product. It's not my problem that they've settled on a revenue model that isn't in line with what I'm prepared to do.
Sure, then you're okay with the consequences of the product not existing when they go out of business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has not been my experience at all with SaaS. I find SaaS products, including ones I have paid for, disappear at a much greater rate than the rate at which the desktop tools they replaced stop working. There's also next to nothing I can do as an end user when they do disappear. If I'm very lucky, I get a limited window to be able to export a portion of my data. But we've eroded data formats to the point where eve…
SaaS from established firms seems to be more durable & maintained. The problem is all the flash in the pan ZIRP VC funded never-profit SaaS startups out there. Hopefully these get shaken out over the next couple years finally. For example, I've used Adobe products for a very long time, and they get a lot of flack. I was an extensive user of Photoshop (PS) and Lightroom (LR) for a long time. However, the old model was…
coughPantonecough
Sorta like expanding the mobile phone experience to encompass your whole internet experience, so you can choose what services you use, and where they're hosted, and those two things are fundamentally decoupled.
One such app could be a sort of 'charge card' for websites, which would pay them pennies, or larger tips if you like, instead of having to see ads.
Another might be a connection to a search engine which allows you to tailor _your_ search experience instead of it being optimized in e.g. Google's interests with all the commercial stuff at the top.