Other Software > Developer's Corner

The programmer as (starving) artist

<< < (3/4) > >>

CoderOmega:
Unless, of course, somebody has previously obtained a patent for a "round object which rotates on a central axis" in which case you're stuck with the old wheel until the patent holder decides to put a rubber tire on it.
 ;)
-40hz (February 24, 2010, 06:12 AM)
--- End quote ---

Lol you don't know how true this was for me since my app is actually a round object rotating around a center axis.  ;D ;D ;D

@mouser
That's exactly what I think. If I make a free app, I try to use free tools to help me distribute, advertise or do anything else I need.
And when I want to sell it, obviously it's for me to benefit otherwise what the point of working on it at all in the first place.

But from what I read, most of the time it's not true. I read for games, distributors takes between 60 to 90%.  :'(

mouser:
i think when i make a post like this i have to remember to post the second half of my thoughts regarding the people who do the business end of things.

i have learned, repeatedly, that i do not have a taste for business.  that probably shows when i talk about "middle men".

but the flip side of this is that i also believe that ideas themselves are almost never very valuable.  unless you have the determination and will power and energy and smarts to get things done and finished, and tested, and polished, and idea is rarely any use.

and there is a lot of work and stress and struggle that goes into taking something from an idea into a successful commercial project or business.

so please when you hear me talking about how i think the content creators need to get a fair share, know that i put a very high value on the work required to make something a successful business -- i don't think that's a trivial part of the puzzle.  so i'm all for teams that split up the work evenly in terms of creative art type work vs the business end of things.  for me it always comes down to fair division of labor in terms of how many hours people put in and how much risk they are taking.

i'm not against different people making money by playing different roles -- i'm just against one person "exploiting" the work of another, trying to grab as big a share of the profits as they can based on the vagaries of an infrastructure that tends to consolidate wealth.

steeladept:
So what sounds fair then?  20% for the initial product, 30-50% for maintenance and support, and 30-50% for advertising, sales, and business?  Just thinking out loud.  This seems about right to my non-programming thoughts (maybe a little low for the business part given the cost and variances of it - probably a little high for the maintenance and support).  Business is expensive, and they will only do what makes money.  Maybe something like 20%/20-30%/50-60%.  Of course that is what it sounds like a lot of structures are like - well relatively fair structures anyway.  There are the ones where the business end is the big block bully and will force you to take it or leave it when they "graciously" offer 5% on your work and you must include maintenance and support for it.

BTW:  This is not knocking what you say or think - this is a genuine question of what people honestly think is fair for each general part of the equation.  Maybe I am oversimplifying the equation.  That is okay.  Please correct me with your thoughts on what is right and what the right percentages should work out to too. 

wraith808:
Personally, I think that any product, successful or otherwise, is a unique combination of the sum of its parts.  In some cases, that equation is more heavily driven by the technology end, others by the business end, and others by the maintenance and support.  I don't see that any simple equation will work for every situation.  I think that's the basic reason that understandable frustration builds up on all sides of the equation- the symptoms of the problem being lack of understanding/appreciation of the function of the other elements since they are all so subjective to the situation, and most people in one 'silo' don't really want to know about the other parts of the business.  At least, that's what I've seen, and know that I'm guilty of.

40hz:
What I always worry about in such cases is the scenario where you have the public willing to pay $X for something (whether it be music, art, software), and have a line of middlemen working furiously to make sure the bulk of that money goes to them instead of the creator.
-mouser (February 24, 2010, 07:24 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think that's more the normal state of affairs in commerce. And that's been the case with almost everything (music, art, technology) since ancient times when the first tribe of farmers woke up one morning and found themselves surrounded by their more warlike, non-farming neighbors.

I'm not sure if there's any way around this dilemma other than for the "creatives" to get actively involved in running businesses and/or partnering with people they can trust.

Unfortunately, it's hard to know whom to trust. The record seems to show that many programmers (who became businessmen) were just as adept at exploiting their fellow programmers as anybody else.

Rather sad when you think about it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page