41–50 of 139 posts
However, I don't see how this is not fundamentally just a Github feature. They don't have it now, but if Polar gets any traction, they'll implement it pretty swiftly and probably eat your lunch.
So a VC-funded company expected to produce unicorn returns is going to accomplish this when non-profits haven't? It doesn't seem logical but I hope someone can pull it off! I would like to learn more about the background of the founders - what they've already done in any way related to this. Why does Polar have a chance?
> So a VC-funded company expected to produce unicorn returns is going to accomplish this when non-profits haven't? Business accomplishes something non-profits haven't isn't exactly a stop the presses event?
Polar is a Stripe/Square for GitHub issues, expected to charge enough fees to pay for a portfolio of failed startups and still make their investors money.
Props for trying, the software world needs something like this. However, I don't see how this is not fundamentally just a Github feature. They don't have it now, but if Polar gets any traction, they'll implement it pretty swiftly and probably eat your lunch.
This is such a no-brainer thing for GitHub to do, I've really wondered why they never did it.
It'd also be an obvious thing for Patreon to consider getting into, though it's maybe outside their core expertise.
If anyone wants to see Polar in action on a GitHub issue, I'm experimenting with Polar on my Architecture Decision Record repo: https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/architecture-decision... (I'm on the fence about the value of Polar for this kind of issue... see what you think)
That's awesome and thanks for sharing @jph! I'd love to hear your feedback and how we can make Polar better for you. I'm always available to chat. @birk (twitter), birk [at] polar.sh or on our Discord.
There’s a secret third thing that never seems to get mentioned: not pittances through donations and not speculative investment from VCs, but plain old paid engineering. Most open source maintainers don’t want to be “entrepreneurs”; they just want to be paid an (approximately) fair rate for their time. Hiring them (or paying them for consultation time) achieves this.
Definitely a problem that needs to be solved. And the current donation/patreon/coffee mechanism just doesn't work. The problem is that I don't know if people/businesses are really willing to pay the actual cost of getting things done. I'm not even sure people even appreciate the work that is involved in most of their requests - how many times have you looked at some commercial software and had the "could build that i…
ooo, ooo, I know... (hand up) - pick me... pick me... Short answer, no the're not.
The ones that are demonstrate their willingness to do so by, you know, spending money on proprietary software. I'm as happy as the next guy to make use of Open Source software, but it either works for me (no money necessary) or it doesn't (in which case I'll spend the money, with, you know, an actual business...)
Ok, cynic mode off, but let's be honest - there's a new "solution" to this problem like every other week. They all want to funnel money between the mythical person who wants to pay, to the mythical developer who wants to receive. All the other methods have failed, but apparently the problem is not the lack of people _willing_ to pay, but the fact that it's "too hard to pay"? I gotta say, after all these attempts, you would think one of them would have succeeded, unless, perhaps, aside from a few anecdotes, the actual pool of payers doesn't exist.
I wish you well, I really do, but I fear you're solving the wrong problem. Trouble is the right problem isn't solvable. But maybe, just maybe, if you solve the wrong problem enough, then maybe something of substance will happen.
I could go on about how most OSS developers don't _want_ to be paid. Because getting paid tiny amounts is a hassle which exceeds the income. So sure, guarantee me 10K a month for more than a year, and maybe it's worth the effort of accounting, and taxes, and obligations, and deadlines, and people complaining after the fact, before the fact, during the fact. But for a few hundred $ here and there - pass...
Cynic mode back on - another month, another startup planning to solve this "problem". Good luck!
So a VC-funded company expected to produce unicorn returns is going to accomplish this when non-profits haven't? It doesn't seem logical but I hope someone can pull it off! I would like to learn more about the background of the founders - what they've already done in any way related to this. Why does Polar have a chance?
I'm biased of course, but I think the fact that we're VC-funded and for-profit is a good & important difference here. Donations & sponsorship are great when they happen. Problem is they rarely do. In order to drive meaningful (full-time work) capital to OSS initiatives, I believe it has to charge for add-on value and that such services and subscriptions are mutually beneficial. See mkdocs-material as a prime example.
We're building a platform to make setting up, deploying and managing such services seamless for both maintainers and their customers. Completely up to the maintainers to craft their services & subscriptions using those features to fit their initiative & community. I think such a platform is missing today and our model aligns us with maintainers – we don't get paid until they do. So it's good that we're intentionally for-profit :-)
Yes, it's going to be incredibly hard and the odds are stacked against us, but I believe this needs to exist. Maintainers deserve a platform where they are not limited to any given model, but free to experiment, try and optimize what works best for them and their communities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So a VC-funded company expected to produce unicorn returns is going to accomplish this when non-profits haven't? Business accomplishes something non-profits haven't isn't exactly a stop the presses event?
I clearly failed to sufficiently emphasize the VC unicorn part enough, my bad. Polar is a Stripe/Square for GitHub issues, expected to charge enough fees to pay for a portfolio of failed startups and still make their investors money.
History has shown these types of things are 100% inevitable with these types of businesses if they manage to survive, so it's smart to think about them well in advance and have an exit strategy if you decide to depend on them.