Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site October 25, 2014, 04:29:13 AM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
Learn about the DonationCoder.com microdonation system (DonationCredits).
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Fairware: an interesting experiment in getting paid for Open Source  (Read 22934 times)
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #75 on: September 23, 2011, 08:57:48 AM »

Quote from: wraith808
They're free and MS includes them as a courtesy as part of the FS so they don't care about it?

That's one way to look at it but at the same time, again it goes back to not what it is but why it is there and what it means to users.

Quote
I wasn't quibbling on the word need.  My point was that need doesn't drive consumption necessarily.

Which is quibbling. I may be misusing the word here. Quibble here to me means closer to lightly (but validly) argue with the word than it is to take the word lightly.

It's why even for simple explanations it can get lengthy.

See it's quibbling if it's just directing what the word is. It's quibbling if it just directs the conversation to something impersonal i.e. "consumption" rather than something personal i.e. "needs by users".

Quote
In the other situations that you refer to (dropbox, evernote) it was marketing, also.

Almost everything has marketing but not everything gains their success due to pure marketing.

Have we forgotten that evernote had negative marketing? Even in just reducing complaints, evernote has been poor at that. What evernote had was a focus shift on where they should take their direction. Just think how stupid it would be from a pure marketing perspective to alienate your fanbase and make your application worse.

Even today among new evernote users, you have complaints. The company is not yet heading in a totally right direction. What they have done though is that their focus have given them opportunities to be used in a very under utilized niche that is slowly getting bigger and they are slowly creating the space for Evernote users to simply be Evernote users and not look elsewhere unless Evernote fails them. (Even though it is really failing already in terms of just being a reliable product)

Dropbox is on the opposite spectrum. Marketing + design drove users in but it didn't determine the price people want to pay. You can't also just keep dodging file manager integration. That's actually a feature. It's the feature that made people tolerate the price despite complaints.

Quote
People discount marketing, then talk about the church of Jobs/Apple.

...and this is why I used the term quibble. It's a valid argument but come on...

It's like superboyac just replying to my post and acting as if it's a video. Even if people discount marketing and then talk about the church of Jobs, at least consider my words.

You really think my writing a post that long can't even account for the statement of marketing, timing, being at a right place at the right time, celebrity status, etc.?

Even if I am unable to communicate my post, common logic has to apply that if you think I wasn't talking mostly bunk and I wrote it with that length - then it didn't discount marketing.

We can't keep moving the goal post in order to settle the quibble. It's the very reason that leads superboyac and many people to get an over-simplified "just focus on the users" statement.

It's not because there are no developers "ignoring the users" but we get into discussions like this that keeps moving the goal post to an entirely different argument that instead of getting back to the original intent of getting the users closer to donationware/fairware - we just quibble about Apple. No matter how valid it not only kills the spirit of our replies, eats away at what little souls our post have to make the problems of donationware rolling but it turns the philosophy of the thread to your point vs. his point.

At some point, that's what kills it for people like superboyac or others. It's not that they are saying Apple is not innovative/not all about marketing/etc. It's that to care about users at the end of the day has to be talking and analyzing the users. You can't do that if you're focusing on "they're not special". At least unless you're simply satisfied with the current state of donationware or have a different plan and am simply trying to insert a point about Apple which was already been understood.

At the same time, this is why I disagree with superboyac's usage of need and why I want to show that there's clues of duplication beyond Apple. Apple subjects are like religion or browser wars or some popular fuel to the thread that kills the thread and makes it as if everytime someone brings Apple, it's about comparing Apple exactly to a concept. It's too destructive. It kills the possibility that maybe people are bringing Apple as a meta-concept and not as a direct analogy.

The Madonna thing for example. If the ones who could actually duplicate Madonna, all would think Madonna can't be repackaged, rebranded, reduplicated - We would have no Lady Gaga. Albeit not everyone is a fan of Gaga (and I'm not a hardcore fan) but at the end of the day, it was this focus that gave us Gaga instead of the Madonna lites of pop stars in Icky Britney and all the blondes watering down on the slut concept to the teen slut clone with nothing "alternative" to offer except by name and some minor quibble (just like this thread, where Britney can't be duplicated but Christina is the better singer and Mandy Moore is the better actress so so and so is blah blah blah).

At a certain point, needs does not have to equal direct innovation. Innovation does not equal innovation. You want the ultimate debunker, look towards the entire history of the "personal" computer or the internet. Even at the surface level, there was no ideal rainbow nor truly cynical impossibility. It was a bunch of philosophy. A bunch of practicality. A bunch of experiments. A bunch of business model changes. A bunch of supply deployment changes - and yet even today the laptop can be duplicated into the netbook and the netbook can be duplicated into the e-book reader and the e-book reader can be duplicated into the e-ink reader while the e-book reader can head to the smartphone while smartphones get phased out for iphones and then iphones bring back smartphones in vogue and then that vogueness brings in Ipads...it doesn't have to be from a purely technical or specific or direct analogy. At the end of the day, it's just about donationware and talking and changing and pointing out and making analogies to donationware. If it's just about how Apple is so and so then we might as well throw out the entire context of this thread. It's beyond hijacking, it's hijacked hijacking. It's well intentioned people getting to the point but because Apple has to be discussed, we're willing to intentionally block the ball from rolling when it comes to sharing our perspectives about donationware/fairware/well intentioned ware. And once again, what keyword moves away from the actual "need" to be discussed? Users. Yes, users may be related to consumption, marketing ,etc. but the actual term of users gets buried under Apple, Apple, Apple, yes, no, Apple, Apple, Apple, the point is...fairware...donationware...Apple...Apple...Apple...no it can't happen, let's not talk about Apple...let's not talk about Apple...let's not talk about Apple...let's not talk about users...let's talk about donationware/fairware without the users...
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 09:14:25 AM by Paul Keith » Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
superboyac
Charter Member
***
Posts: 5,703


Is your software in my list?

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #76 on: September 23, 2011, 09:00:56 AM »

Quote
If you truly do have an innovative technology you've developed, expect to either be bought out by one of the big companies - or sued out of existence.

This issue has been discussed so often that it's not necessary to say much more about it than that.

-----------

And it's for those reasons that I say Apple's game can't be duplicated.
Thanks 40.  I'll have to reconsider my stance on all of this.
Logged

hsoft
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 15

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #77 on: September 23, 2011, 02:59:15 PM »

I'm also glad to see 40hz brought up the "most people don't care" point and that this prompted mouser's previously mentioned idea of a fixed price up-front with a "show me other ways to pay for this" option. I had forgotten about this idea but I remain very curious about it and I'd really like to see someone try it on an already successful app (so we have a basis for comparison).

The thread got sidetracked a bit, but I wanted to let you guys know that I want to try mouser's proposal and implement a "dual-mode" for my software. After my upcoming dupeGuru release (in a few days, normally), we'll have a better idea of how well it works.
Logged
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,732



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #78 on: September 23, 2011, 03:24:03 PM »

I'm also glad to see 40hz brought up the "most people don't care" point and that this prompted mouser's previously mentioned idea of a fixed price up-front with a "show me other ways to pay for this" option. I had forgotten about this idea but I remain very curious about it and I'd really like to see someone try it on an already successful app (so we have a basis for comparison).

The thread got sidetracked a bit, but I wanted to let you guys know that I want to try mouser's proposal and implement a "dual-mode" for my software. After my upcoming dupeGuru release (in a few days, normally), we'll have a better idea of how well it works.

Looks really interesting. Please let us know how it works out.  I can't begin to tell you how much I want things to have changed - and for me to be proven wrong on some of the points I've previously made. smiley  

Luck! Thmbsup

Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
PhotoComiX
Participant
*
Posts: 20


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #79 on: September 25, 2011, 07:15:02 PM »

I found really weird the combination of Open Source, nagscreen and unlock key

I suppose may work better for donation, but the risk of forks IS very high...

It is low in the particular case of the sw discussed here but in case of something more fancy, let say a app to play music & convert Flac & alike to mp3, or to create texture for to 3D models, or more simply to customize Windoze looks...then the risk of fork will become much higher
Logged
hsoft
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 15

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #80 on: September 25, 2011, 09:49:49 PM »

I found really weird the combination of Open Source, nagscreen and unlock key

I suppose may work better for donation, but the risk of forks IS very high...

It is low in the particular case of the sw discussed here but in case of something more fancy, let say a app to play music & convert Flac & alike to mp3, or to create texture for to 3D models, or more simply to customize Windoze looks...then the risk of fork will become much higher

I disagree. Forking itself is relatively easy, but maintaining a fork is a lot of work, so you have to have a good reason to do it. What would be your reason for forking an "app to play music & convert Flac & alike to mp3" if it was a mix of Open Source, nagscreen and unlock key? simply to get it for free? Then it's easier to just look at the code, check how to generate a key, and then just unlock the thing. Seriously, when you contemplate maintaining a fork, you're talking about many hours of work, bandwidth, letting people know that it exists, all that stuff.
Logged
hsoft
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 15

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #81 on: September 28, 2011, 09:27:50 AM »

I've released the "dual-licensed" dupeGuru yesterday evening and I think the end results is rather interesting. The initial popup simply mentions fairware, but otherwise is a standard shareware "you can try it for free, but until you buy it, there are limitations". There's a "Fairware?" button for the curious. I even created a specific purchase webpage which, unlike the fairware contribution page, doesn't mention anything about fairware (the goal is to not confuse the user who doesn't want to be confused). The fairware "about" page now mentions that to unlock the fairware mode, all you have to do is to type "fairware" in the registration key dialog. When you do that, dupeGuru behaves as it did before.

Out of 12 contributions since the release, 2 were of "purchase" type. These stats are skewed because only one of the 3 editions has been made "dual-license" yet, and not everyone updated to that latest version. But simply the fact that these 2 "purchases" were made is indication enough, I think, that there is a group of people who just want to know about how much it costs.

Another interesting fact is that both these purchases were from non-english countries, so maybe that their english is simply not good enough to understand the page describing fairware?
Logged
superboyac
Charter Member
***
Posts: 5,703


Is your software in my list?

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #82 on: September 29, 2011, 09:47:28 AM »

To me, it still comes down to this simple thing:  people won't pay if they don't HAVE to pay.  Ever.
Logged

40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,732



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #83 on: September 29, 2011, 10:15:32 AM »

To me, it still comes down to this simple thing:  people won't pay if they don't HAVE to pay.  Ever.

Not always never...

I do.

Quite often in fact.  smiley

(I'm such a boy scout about stuff like that.  Grin )

Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
wraith808
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 6,417



"In my dreams, I always do it right."

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #84 on: September 29, 2011, 10:18:29 AM »

To me, it still comes down to this simple thing:  people won't pay if they don't HAVE to pay.  Ever.

Not always never...

I do.

Quite often in fact.  smiley

(I'm such a boy scout about stuff like that.  Grin )



I do also.  Not just about being a boy scout- it's more about understanding the value of the service provided IMO.
Logged

superboyac
Charter Member
***
Posts: 5,703


Is your software in my list?

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #85 on: September 29, 2011, 11:00:01 AM »

To me, it still comes down to this simple thing:  people won't pay if they don't HAVE to pay.  Ever.

Not always never...

I do.

Quite often in fact.  smiley

(I'm such a boy scout about stuff like that.  Grin )
Sure, so do a lot of us here because it's kind of a love of ours.  But you can't depend on that kind of charity and loving attitude as a business strategy, especially when we are in such the minority.  So a shareware author is not going to make a living simply because a few people appreciate his effort.  I wish that was the case, but it's not.  You basically have to put people in the position where they have to pay for this thing whether they want to or not.  Especially with software.
Logged

40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,732



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #86 on: September 29, 2011, 11:46:53 AM »

Especially with software.

Agree. Cool

Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
hsoft
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 15

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #87 on: September 29, 2011, 12:00:10 PM »

Superboyac, I don't know why you persist in saying that it can't work in front of monetary evidence that it does. In september, only with the "plain fairware" system (but with hours to compensate most of the time, so that's why the revenue is higher than other months), there was over 2000$ of income. I'm not a big spender, so this is more than enough for me.

Sales in the last two days (since the introduction of that "dual-license" thingy) seems to indicate that revenue will continue to rise. So again, why persist in saying that it can't work? Wouldn't you take a job that gives you 2000$ to work a few hours a week from home?
Logged
mouser
First Author
Administrator
*****
Posts: 33,590



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #88 on: September 29, 2011, 12:34:17 PM »

hsoft, to be fair to superboy's point, if you have this:
Quote
The initial popup simply mentions fairware, but otherwise is a standard shareware "you can try it for free, but until you buy it, there are limitations"

then we may be back on the shareware turf where we have people paying because they have to in order to use the software.

so i'm not sure it's fair to say that this is evidence that people pay even if they they don't feel like they need to.



I think it may be fairer to say that there is a continuum:
  • On one side is the shareware approach where to really fully use the software people have to pay a fixed amount.  This model does fine.
  • On the other side is absolutely pure-as-driven-snow freeware, which has no limits, no requirements to get a license key, not even a nag or text saying they should donate.  This model seems to almost never get any financial support -- except in the most unusual cases.

And then somewhere in between are the more intriguing models, whose space we don't understand fully.  That's where DonationCoder and Fairware are trying to find a home.

And the interesting question is what does this space look like? Are there significantly better ways to do things that end up with everyone happier?
Logged
hsoft
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 15

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #89 on: September 29, 2011, 12:40:08 PM »

hsoft, to be fair to superboy's point, if you have this:
Quote
The initial popup simply mentions fairware, but otherwise is a standard shareware "you can try it for free, but until you buy it, there are limitations"

then we may be back on the shareware turf where we have people paying because they have to in order to use the software.

so i'm not sure it's fair to say that this is evidence that people pay even if they they don't feel like they need to.

The "double license" thing is less than 3 days old. The 2000$ threshold had been reached in september before that new system came along. The problem I was trying to solve with this new dual system is not so much one of income, but one of incomprehension and frustration (but a side effect of it is increased income).

But yes, you're right, it's not quite "pay whatever/whenever you want" anymore, but given what we've said before about "care vs don't care", I think that this system reaches a fair balance.

EDIT: (now that I look at the numbers more closely, the threshold wasn't quite reached, but it would have been, even without the dual thing)
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 12:49:14 PM by hsoft » Logged
mouser
First Author
Administrator
*****
Posts: 33,590



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #90 on: September 29, 2011, 12:59:11 PM »

Quote
The problem I was trying to solve with this new dual system is not so much one of income, but one of incomprehension and frustration (but a side effect of it is increased income).

Yep.  And I do think that addressing this issue is likely to yield real benefits all around; it's the one area where DC really can do better.  That's why I'm especially interested in hearing how you do with it!

I just think it's important to point out that perhaps the cleanest way to reconcile the differing arguments made by superboy and others -- is to acknowledge that it *IS* for all intents and purposes virtually impossible to get people to donate/pay if there is no tangible benefit to them for doing so.

But that there are a variety of ways to provide some minimal benefit which is sufficient to raise enough income to be satisfied by, while still making it possible and not overly difficult for everyone to use the software fully even if they can't/won't pay.

What's interesting about the open source route is the natural option, which has been used before, see for example XChat, to provide the source code for free, but charge for the compiled version.  This is an unusual option not available to non-open-source tools, because it in effect presents almost all potential users with a requirement that they purchase a license -- since they are not prepared to compile the source themselves, while still making it possible for anyone to get it for free IF they are willing to do a substantial amount of work.  [The only time this breaks down is when the software gets popular enough to fork or inspire someone to start publicizing a public compiled version -- but people's distrust might still make this unappealing].

In many ways this is the concept of "work equalization" I mentioned in my article on DonationCoder -- but much more extreme.  It says the program is free *IF* you are willing to do a huge amount of work which most people aren't.

Part of whether this is appealing comes down to whether you are more interested in open source or insuring that everyone can use the software for free without too much effort even if they don't want to donate.

Just some random thoughts.
Logged
Paul Keith
Member
**
Posts: 1,982


see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #91 on: September 29, 2011, 05:54:47 PM »

Quote from: mouser
get people to donate/pay if there is no tangible benefit to them for doing so.

This seems a little contradictory because the ware is often times the benefit.

I think it's great though that fairware is running along well. We really shouldn't rush the disagreements here in my opinion.

Eventually fairware if it continues to grow will reach a blocking point. When that time comes, then we'll see how it handles the situation.

If it's growth has been to the tune of many shareware moving over to fairware then that debunks superboyac but if hsoft shows a complete stop or almost a trickle to fairware profits then superboyac can re-chime in.

Throughout history sometimes big changes need little drops like this. I do side with your opinion mouser but I think there comes a point when the baby is thrown with the bath water when progress is staring people in the face. I wouldn't mind if people decide to advertise fairware more for now. Maybe even request some NANY makers who are on the fence to try them and see where it goes for them.

At the very least if there's a glimmer under the ground, I think it's best to dig it up as quickly and see what the whole thing is really about. Maybe the reason fairware works for hsoft is thanks to dupeguru's value but maybe there's something about the concept of fairware that just "clicks" with people and this time the burden of proof for why it doesn't work falls on the lap of the naysayers, as sound as their ideas are.
Logged

<reserve space for the day DC can auto-generate your signature from your personal PopUp Wisdom quotes>
db90h
Coding Snacks Author
Charter Member
***
Posts: 455


Software Engineer

View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #92 on: October 12, 2011, 01:31:51 AM »

This is the most lengthy discussion I've seen in a while. Granted, I did not read most of it, hence anything I say will likely be ignorant. However, let me remind everyone, that no matter what you call it, this is a business, not any form of charity (fact, as classified by the IRS). Traditional businesses give away freebies all the time, for instance. As you struggle to, ironically, increase revenue generation, I wonder if aren't compromising the very philosophy by which the site was built.

Perhaps you should not try so hard to increase revenue generation. The site itself has its costs covered it seems. As for the authors, well how much do you expect to make? Hint: Don't expect much. It is competitive out there.

If you want to sell your software, just call it Shareware. One of my pieces of software *never* expires has almost every function fully functional indefinitely. However, since it isn't 100% freeware, I must label is Shareware - else be crucified. Can I now call it 'Fairware?' (with a few tweaks?). I guess I could.. does that get me 'extra credit' or any extra purchasers? I doubt it.

Just remember this: Everyone needs to quit pretending that trying to increase revenue generation is anything BUT business as usual. If revenue becomes your primary motivator, as it often does in this world, you might as well go ahead and embrace bundles.. Oh, wait, some have already (nothing against ya, just making my point). A few years ago I would have never thought I'd see the day... but, times change.

This is MY opinion.. to which I hope I'm entitled and not burned at the stake for. Either be different, or be the same.. The choice is always yours.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 02:30:51 AM by db90h » Logged
mouser
First Author
Administrator
*****
Posts: 33,590



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #93 on: October 12, 2011, 02:19:19 AM »

Like most things in life there are shades of gray in all of these things and it's hard to come up with labels that aren't a bit fuzzy.. Corporations do charity work.. Charities sell things to make money, etc.

With open source becoming a money-making business for many companies these days.. things are getting messy and confusing.

I think part of the answer to what you are is all about your priorities.. Is maximizing profit your primary goal?  Or is it something else?

From my standpoint, my long term and unrealistic hope was and still is a world where individuals (writers, programmers, musicians, etc.) can make enough money to live off of from voluntary contributions from end users -- and where full access to content is available to people regardless of their financial status.

To me that is the heart of what i'm interested in, and there is no logical reason why it shouldn't work -- only cultural obstacles.

For DC this has meant having to straddle an often uncomfortable position of spending a lot of time talking about raising money (hell it's right in the name of the site) while not letting money corrupt the spirit of the site and play anything but a minor role in what we do.

I know I speak for many coders when I say that I write code because I love writing code and love when users enjoy the programs I write.  Money is not the end goal here -- it's the necessary evil needed to pay bills so that we can continue coding.

The traditional way to handle all this is so much cleaner: Separate the things you do in life for money from the things you do in life as a hobby, and don't try to combine the two.  Most of open source seems to fall under this kind of model.  People have their "real" jobs that pay the bills, and then they can spend their spare time releasing free and open source software, without having to worry about raising any income from it.  That road seems logical and less complicated.

But I still think there should be a way to get direct funding from users of the stuff you create, while still being able to make it available for free.  And I think there are unique non-financial benefits that come out of such a relationship with the community.  And that relationship may be the most important and rewarding aspect of the whole experience -- potentially deeper and more fulfilling than what comes out of simply giving away stuff that you create as a hobby.  At least that's been my experience here on DC -- where the experience I've had with everyone here has been so much more than i ever imagined, and is the most important thing to me.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 02:36:35 AM by mouser » Logged
db90h
Coding Snacks Author
Charter Member
***
Posts: 455


Software Engineer

View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #94 on: October 12, 2011, 02:36:15 AM »

Yes, no offense intended, it was just coming from one who remembers an earlier time.

And I would say your ORIGINAL concept DID AND DOES WORK. It paid for itself many times over. It may not have made as much money as hoped, but it made money. That is a successful business. Your annual fund raising drives eclipse what I'm likely to make in a year, so that's not doing bad.. if you ask me. Be careful not to fall into the trap of capitalism, always wanting more..

One thing is clear: The days of Donationware, Fairware, or even Freeware snubbing its nose at 'Shareware' is OVER. I would take CLEAN Shareware with LIBERAL licensing over a lot of the freeware I see these days, and willingly pay for it. In this perverse way, the rise of 'freecrap' has increased the value of shareware, lol.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 04:17:32 AM by db90h » Logged
mouser
First Author
Administrator
*****
Posts: 33,590



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #95 on: October 12, 2011, 08:56:50 AM »

Quote
I would take CLEAN Shareware with LIBERAL licensing over a lot of the freeware I see these days, and willingly pay for it.

I feel you.. And my larger programs with the need to download a free license key are very much in dangerous territory here, and get regular flack for that.  It's something we really do have to constantly be vigilant about and worry about crossing the line over.  And it's something i keep thinking about how to eliminate..

And I have railed over and over again about us entering an age where everything is "free" but hides ulterior convoluted system of advertising and manipulation and indirect money making, etc.

You can count me as one of those people that believes our brains are getting scrambled by all this crazy indirect system of extracting money from people by creating long chains of confusion.. where printers are free but ink is marked up insanely -- and the crazy things that become necessary with such an economy.  I believe it is far better to have a clear direct financial interaction with the person benefiting from a product or service.



I think part of the discussion on this thread has involved the the issue that many people get very turned off by the confusion/complexity of the whole donationware thing, and many people would prefer the simplicity of just paying a fixed price and PURCHASING the software.  But then finding a way to do that and make your software available for free is tricky.

The cleanest solution that some people seem to do well with is "Free for personal use" -- and for software that has a good share of the commercial market that seems like a nice straightforward approach based on the honor system.  Just not easy to use when your software is mainly targeted at home users.  Plus I think it ignores the issue i've tried to raise before, which is that there is something special that seems to happen when you accept donations from your users -- it seems to me from experience at DonationCoder that it really does lead to a unique and rewarding relationship that I wouldn't want to lose.

And getting back to a point you were making, I also think that the freeware/opensource community can fall into a trap of viewing software/shareware companies as somehow less noble than free software.  I think we've tried hard here on DC to not do that.  Shareware and Programmers being able to make money off of their hard work is a good and noble thing.  We are in the same boat of being small fish in a pond of very greedy sharks.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 09:06:19 AM by mouser » Logged
hsoft
Honorary Member
**
Posts: 15

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #96 on: October 12, 2011, 10:16:52 AM »

If you want to sell your software, just call it Shareware. One of my pieces of software *never* expires has almost every function fully functional indefinitely. However, since it isn't 100% freeware, I must label is Shareware - else be crucified. Can I now call it 'Fairware?' (with a few tweaks?). I guess I could.. does that get me 'extra credit' or any extra purchasers? I doubt it.

The big difference between Shareware and Fairware is that Fairware is open source. Do you see many shareware apps being open source out there? I think that the novelty of the concept justifies a new name.

That being said, as I mentioned at the end of this thread, I recently gone back to a more shareware-like presentation of the software, even though the app is fairware. To Joe Sixpack, the app behaves like your typical shareware, but if he's curious, he can learn about fairware and enable the "fairware mode". I think that's a pretty good compromise.
Logged
40hz
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 10,732



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #97 on: October 12, 2011, 01:03:46 PM »

It might be worth watching this presentation by Bryan Lunduke. Bryan is a FOSS/Linux advocate and a software developer (Radical Breeze Software) who addresses several of the issues surrounding Linux and offers some suggestions about how to fix them based on reality rather than wishful thinking or philosophizing. (Hint: we need to seriously start thinking about paying for things we use if we want them to continue being developed.)

The presentation is entitled: Why Linux Sucks (Less Than Before):

Quote
We all love Linux but, let's be honest, sometimes Linux just plain sucks. We'll take a look at the current crop of issues that drive us crazy, along with the recent changes (from new Desktop Environments to Software Stores) that are making Linux both suck less... and more. And, of course, we'll dive in to exactly what we can do to make Desktop Linux better over the next year. Presented by: Bryan Lunduke

A lot of what's in this presentation touches on the much broader topic of independent software development so it's well worth a watch even if you have no interest in Linux.

Note: the presentation is best viewed in its entirety, but you can move forward to the 22 minute mark if you want to get to where software development takes center stage . Bryan makes a hard case for why the current open source development model fails when it comes to some important categories of software. He then suggests ways to start looking outside one box FOSS seems to have put itself into.

But enough from me. Listen to it from someone who knows because he does.

Check it out below:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukd-Am2bbDo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukd-Am2bbDo</a>

WARNING: Some of what Bryan suggests will be heresy to many die-hard RMS types. As a longtime FOSS/GNU/Linux advocate myself, I can only say: So be it! Grin



« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 06:26:26 PM by 40hz; Reason: edited grammar and fixed awkward wording » Logged

Don't you see? It's turtles all the way down!
mouser
First Author
Administrator
*****
Posts: 33,590



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #98 on: October 12, 2011, 01:12:16 PM »

Great find.  as you say 24 minutes in and he's talking about the exact issues we have been talking about regarding developers needing funding -- not to get rich but to sustain development.
Logged
db90h
Coding Snacks Author
Charter Member
***
Posts: 455


Software Engineer

View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #99 on: October 12, 2011, 07:29:19 PM »

.. del my post because it was mostly pointless .. but remember, at what point is 'sustaining the project' just 'needing more money' for personal bills... If you are already making more than a person working 40 hours a week a minimum wage, well then... Lastly, I am saddened to see that the concept behind this site, which both WORKED, and has GENERATED GREAT REVENUE, is now being relegated to the 'gray areas' as boundaries are pushed back and ethical tolerances lowered.

Lastly, don't forget to pay your taxes people Wink. You take in money, you better be paying taxes. You'll find out that here in the USA us self-employed are taxed at a very high rate.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 09:47:38 PM by db90h » Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.055s | Server load: 0.24 ]