Author Topic: jv16 PowerTools - using Indiegogo to 'fund'' open-sourcing it (Read 17633 times)

mwb1100 · « **on:** March 12, 2014, 10:40 PM »

Macecraft has an Indiegogo fundraiser that has a target of $100K - if they meet the target, they have committed to releasing the source to jv16 Powertools under the GPL. If the fundraiser meets some higher targets, they'll release under a more liberal open source license.

- http://www.indiegogo...tools-as-open-source

I'm not sure what to think about this exactly. Interesting, if nothing else.

I haven't been a fan of registry cleaners for a long while now (and I *think* that's what jv16 Powertools' main function is), but I guess a quality open source package would be a good thing.

If I correctly understand all the updates they've posted, a $10 pledge will get you a jv16 license immediately, so you can consider it a sale of sorts.

But be aware! This crowdsource fundraiser will immediately charge you for a pledge, even if the goal is never met. I'm not very experienced with these things, but it was my understanding that the usual rule was that pledges didn't get charged unless the goal was met.

At the moment, they stand at $37K of the $100K goal, with 11 days remaining.

40hz · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2014, 06:18 AM »

Hmm...this is an odd one. But I think I have a pretty good idea of what's going on with this.

I've also got a few things I want to say about the entire proposition that will have to wait until I get a little more time to post.

But be aware! This crowdsource fundraiser will immediately charge you for a pledge, even if the goal is never met. I'm not very experienced with these things, but it was my understanding that the usual rule was that pledges didn't get charged unless the goal was met.
-mwb1100 (March 12, 2014, 10:40 PM)

Good point! But it's important to note that that's primarily Kickstarter's rule. And since Kickstarter was the earliest and most successful crowdfunding aggregator, it has (mostly) become the norm for crowdfunding in general. But it's not a legal requirement.

Different aggregators can adopt whatever rules they want. And those rules can be expanded (i.e. made "flexible") or change with little notice. So it's always good to read the fine print. Because Kickstarter is a business - not a public service.

Later!

jpfx · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:30 AM »

IMO it's a dead (very) product and macecraft is laughing all the way to the bank.
does it go 'open source' (whoopee) when it doesn't reach $100,000?
does macecraft just pocket what money was funded?

you do get a lifetime license for a dead product.

Curt · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2014, 11:14 AM »

The well respected charter member is entitled to think whatever thoughts he may want to, but allow me to quote another well respected charter member:

Macecraft has historically been anything but greedy. Freeware for years, JV16 Power Tools is now a modest $29.95. Yearly upgrade fees are $6.95. This is their (pretty damn relaxed) policy on licensing for personal users. There's no activation or other baggage.

"A single personal license can be used with up to five personal computers at your home if the computers are mainly used only by you or the members of your family."
-mrainey (June 29, 2010, 08:30 AM)

The point being that some of us believes Jouni Vuorio (author & owner of Macecraft JV16) to be quite okay; you know, "our kind of guy".

I don't know if JV16 will exist tomorrow, but until further notice JV16 is regularly updated.

On another angle, Jouni Vuorio has on more than one occasion acted somewhat "naive".

40hz · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2014, 01:41 PM »

On another angle, Jouni Vuorio has on more than one occasion acted somewhat "naive".
-Curt (March 13, 2014, 11:14 AM)

Thank you Curt! I was going to write a bit more about this. But upon reflection, after reading the above, I think your choice of the word "naive" succinctly summed up everything I had to say.

So I'm going to let it go and just say +1 w/Curt.

Innuendo · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2014, 07:00 PM »

Let me preface my comment by saying I do not use this product, I have had no experience with the author, and those two factors are likely to continue unchanged. I have no leanings towards supporting or condemning him or anything he does.

I did want to weigh on the 'you will be charged immediately' portion of the conversation. I think this is acceptable behavior because you will be receiving a license key immediately in return for your pledge. Places like Kickstarter don't charge you until after the goal has been reached, but...you also don't receive anything immediately & if the goal is not reached you don't receive anything at all as well as not being charged at all.

I think mwb1100 has the right way to look at this. Look at it as a sale with a fringe benefit if the sale/fund-raiser is a success. Regardless of how things turn out, you'll at least be walking away with a license for one-third the normal price.

I'll close by saying registry cleaners are dangerous. If you are not knowledgeable and don't closely supervise what they often wish to do to your system you're probably going to end up re-installing your OS.

wraith808 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2014, 08:29 PM »

But be aware! This crowdsource fundraiser will immediately charge you for a pledge, even if the goal is never met. I'm not very experienced with these things, but it was my understanding that the usual rule was that pledges didn't get charged unless the goal was met.
-mwb1100 (March 12, 2014, 10:40 PM)

Good point! But it's important to note that that's primarily Kickstarter's rule. And since Kickstarter was the earliest and most successful crowdfunding aggregator, it has (mostly) become the norm for crowdfunding in general. But it's not a legal requirement.

Different aggregators can adopt whatever rules they want. And those rules can be expanded (i.e. made "flexible") or change with little notice. So it's always good to read the fine print - as many an unsuccessful Kickstarter project learned to its dismay when it discovered it was still on the hook for the percentage Kickstarter charges to host a campaign. Because Kickstarter is a business - not a public service. It gets its fee regardless of your campaign's success or failure.
-40hz (March 13, 2014, 06:18 AM)

With Indiegogo, they have a couple of different ways of setting up your project. The traditional Kickstarter manner is called Fixed Funding. But this particular campaign is under Flexible Funding. Right under the donate button on any project on indiegogo, it will tell you the manner of funding.

CONTRIBUTE NOW ▶
Flexible Funding
This campaign will receive all funds raised even if it does not reach its goal. Funding duration: January 22, 2014 - March 23, 2014 (11:59pm PT).

Unless it's something that I don't really care about- like charity, which Kickstarter doesn't let you do so a lot of those end up here- I wouldn't pledge to a flexible funding campaign. It shows that they don't have the confidence to really run their campaign- they're just trying to get money. And I have no faith that the afterwards won't end up the same way. In this case, because of the way the rewards are set up, I think it's valid. But in most cases, I stay away.

40hz · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2014, 09:26 PM »

Here's the thing...the campaign doesn't really make sense as stated.

Normally, when you go with a GPL license, your intention is to build a community of developers and maintainers. It's more a political or philosophical thing. It's not a business model.

What's being proposed goes against that philosophy.

It would be one thing to solicit contributions before development begins. That sometimes happens in order to gauge interest before committing to a development effort. Or to GPL something once it is developed and ask for contributions to keep the project going. That's the way most FOSS projects work.

But to basically hold the GPL ransom for an existing fully developed product? It's kind of tacky. And it really doesn't match up to how GPL/FOSS projects work.

Then to add a "stretch" goal and say that instead of going with the GPL, you'll release under a BSD (aka "take the work of others and run") license where you won't be bound to share the source for any additions or mods you may make - with the strong hint you can repackage it as the core of a commercial product? (Hey, it worked for Apple when they did OSX right?)

That simply makes no sense...unless...you were planning on getting out of it...looked for a buyer - but couldn't find one and figured:

What the hell...if we can make some money on the way out, we'll release it to the public and let them have at it...but...maybe we can make even more money if some company somewhere decides they want to use the code in their own commercial product...so we better make the BSD license an option too.

Since the only way we'll probably crack the original target is if some business interest gets interested and coughs up bigger bucks, lets make the BSD license our pledge if the more serious money comes in.

That (to me) is the only rationale I could come up with for why the BSD license is the stretch prize - and the GPL is the target goal's.

J-Mac · « **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2014, 01:18 AM »

Started discussing this about six months ago, here: https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=36182.0

Didn't make much sense then either!

Jim

mwb1100 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 14, 2014, 01:35 AM »

Started discussing this about six months ago, here: https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=36182.0
-J-Mac (March 14, 2014, 01:18 AM)

I missed that - I even searched for "jv16" before posting this and saw that thread, but I guess I stopped reading when I saw that the thread was about the odd request for monetary support to publish a report. Looks like I should have kept scrolling down the page...

mahesh2k · « **Reply #10 on:** March 14, 2014, 01:52 AM »

It's more a political or philosophical thing. It's not a business model.

Not true. GNU says exactly opposite, they don't mind selling the software copies or raising funds for the software. If selling is allowed then it is business model too.

What I find shady here is that registry editors have pricetag of 100K for development? If that is the case then we have many softwares hosted here that could make people into 6 figures.

tomos · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:24 AM »

Maybe they set the goal so high because they dont want to reach it?

40hz · « **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:43 AM »

It's more a political or philosophical thing. It's not a business model.
Not true. GNU says exactly opposite, they don't mind selling the software copies or raising funds for the software. If selling is allowed then it is business model too.
-mahesh2k (March 14, 2014, 01:52 AM)

I think we have very different definitions of what constitutes a business model.

Suggesting and encouraging developers to 'charge something somehow' is not the same thing as having a business model.

Using the FOSS development philosophy can be an element in a business strategy. But that's not the same thing as being a model for conducting business - even though there have been numerous attempts to come up with business models that capitalize on using the GPL as part of their overall strategy.

Note: The best formal analysis I've ever seen for the "open software" development process was by a guy called Benkler who came up with the term "commons-based peer production." It's an interesting idea that gets into the whole concept of 'emergence' as it applies to economics. It's all rather fascinating to read and think about.

The jury is still out as to whether this process marks the start of a 'sea change' in economics as opposed to being merely a temporary phenomenon. But only time will tell.

40hz · « **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2014, 03:55 AM »

Maybe they set the goal so high because they dont want to reach it?
-tomos (March 14, 2014, 03:24 AM)

I hope not. Because I'd consider that an attempt to game or co-opt the system - much like Canonical's ludicrous $32 million IndieGoGo campaign for the Ubuntu Edge smartphone was.

Although Kickstarter often gets criticized for how strict and arbitrary its rules sometimes seem, at least it make it tougher for less than ethical people to play games with it.

wraith808 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2014, 01:41 PM »

Maybe they set the goal so high because they dont want to reach it?
-tomos (March 14, 2014, 03:24 AM)

I hope not. Because I'd consider that an attempt to game or co-opt the system - much like Canonical's ludicrous $32 million IndieGoGo campaign for the Ubuntu Edge smartphone was.

Although Kickstarter often gets criticized for how strict and arbitrary its rules sometimes seem, at least it make it tougher for less than ethical people to play games with it.

-40hz (March 14, 2014, 03:55 AM)

And that's the reason I don't back flexible funding projects.

Vurbal · « **Reply #15 on:** March 15, 2014, 09:29 AM »

It's more a political or philosophical thing. It's not a business model.
Not true. GNU says exactly opposite, they don't mind selling the software copies or raising funds for the software. If selling is allowed then it is business model too.
-mahesh2k (March 14, 2014, 01:52 AM)

I think we have very different definitions of what constitutes a business model. Suggesting and encouraging developers to 'charge something somehow' is not the same thing as having a business model.

Using the FOSS development philosophy can be an element in a business strategy. But that's not the same thing as being a model for conducting business - even though there have been numerous attempts to come up with business models that capitalize on using the GPL as part of their overall strategy.

Note: The best formal analysis I've ever seen for the "open software" development process was by a guy called Benkler who came up with the term "commons-based peer production." It's an interesting idea that gets into the whole concept of 'emergence' as it applies to economics. It's all rather fascinating to read and think about.

The jury is still out as to whether this process marks the start of a 'sea change' in economics as opposed to being merely a temporary phenomenon. But only time will tell.

-40hz (March 14, 2014, 03:43 AM)

To quote Mike Masnick, "Give it away and pray isn't a business model."

paulobrabo · « **Reply #16 on:** July 29, 2014, 03:33 PM »

Now he took the money and disappeared, leaving behind his own child (jv16 PowerTools) just like this without a word and also abandoning all of us, users of his software and, worse, trying to still make more money by sending us emails proposing to buy platinum licences of the software, well knowing that people buying it will never receive the licences nor any support.

Here:
Developer Jouni Flemming is living in Thailand
http://www.macecraft...5&p=33784#p33784

Actually the developer of jv16 PowerTools (Jouni Flemming) is living in Thailand (since april 2014) as appears from the following link provided by member Vasek.

http://www.meetup.co...p/members/140922292/

Other members of the Macecraft staff (like Veera Peltonen) have been laid off.

Read this post of member BlackSteak.
http://www.macecraft...=1&t=5554#p33781

Nobody must doubt the jv16 PowerTools story is finished and there will never be an open source version of this software.

Jouni Flemming always wanted to be (very) rich (as appears from his own words in the following link).

http://jv16.org/

Now he took the money and disappeared, leaving behind his own child (jv16 PowerTools) just like this without a word and also abandoning all of us, users of his software and, worse, trying to still make more money by sending us emails proposing to buy platinum licences of the software, well knowing that people buying it will never receive the licences nor any support.

This could be qualified as swindle.

wraith808 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 29, 2014, 03:39 PM »

I had the feeling that this would be the end of this story. And another blow is dealt to the idea of crowdfunding in the minds of the masses.

40hz · « **Reply #18 on:** July 29, 2014, 04:06 PM »

I had the feeling that this would be the end of this story. And another blow is dealt to the idea of crowdfunding in the minds of the masses.
-wraith808 (July 29, 2014, 03:39 PM)

Yup.

BTW...is it just me...or do about half the comments posted on the campaign site read like astroturf? $:-\$

superboyac · « **Reply #19 on:** July 30, 2014, 01:29 PM »

I had the feeling that this would be the end of this story. And another blow is dealt to the idea of crowdfunding in the minds of the masses.
-wraith808 (July 29, 2014, 03:39 PM)

Yup.

BTW...is it just me...or do about half the comments posted on the campaign site read like astroturf? $:-\$
-40hz (July 29, 2014, 04:06 PM)

no not just you.

J-Mac · « **Reply #20 on:** July 30, 2014, 01:34 PM »

BTW...is it just me...or do about half the comments posted on the campaign site read like astroturf? $:-\$
-40hz (July 29, 2014, 04:06 PM)

Well, who else would post anything nice at all there!

Jim

myarmor · « **Reply #21 on:** October 07, 2014, 08:53 AM »

Sorry about reviving this thread (edit: it might not be the correct one, please move if needed).

I got one of his advertising emails not long ago regarding a "new" version of the
product. I've replaced http with hxxp in all links (I haven't visited those myself).

Spoiler

We have been working around the clock for almost a year now, shrouded in
secrecy and powered by our endless desire to step up our game. Now it’s
time to start to show you what we have been working on.

It's called jv16 PowerTools X and we are super excited being finally able
to tell you about it.

There are so many new things to show to you. But for now, here is just the
first bit of something you should find very interesting:

Startup Optimizer. It's the name of a new feature of jv16 PowerTools X. We
just ran a real life benchmark test in which it improved Windows PC's
startup time from a sluggish 102 seconds down to just 35 seconds! From 102
seconds to 35 seconds. No tricks or gimmicks: All the software and all the
features of Windows are still loading and the Startup Optimizer does not
remove any software or anything from your computer. It works by integrating
itself to the Windows startup procedure and optimizes it to give you a
faster and smoother starting computer. The results are, simply put
astonishing.

The new version will be released before the end of the year, side by side
with a new benchmark test study of unseen scale. Including tests about the
system startup times before and after the Startup Optimizer. The study
tests and measures the actual system cleaning and optimization effects of
jv16 PowerTools in more detail than ever before. We will be publishing all
the information about the test setups, all the numbers and actual video
recordings of the benchmarks being performed so you can verify that
everything is done correctly.

The new PowerTools X will be a free update to all of our Platinum VIP
customers and to all customers who have bought jv16 PowerTools 2014 in
August of 2014, or later. That also means that if you buy jv16 PowerTools
2014 now, you will be entitled for a free update to jv16 PowerTools X.

If you want to secure a Platinum VIP status, please use this link and
you'll receive an amazing discount of 60% - *sixty* per cent:
hxxp://www.macecraft.com?discount=8998

If you don't have a PowerTools 2014 license yet, you can also get it now
and you can update to the upcoming PowerTools X without any further upgrade
fees: hxxp://www.macecraft.com?discount=8998

For more information about the jv16 PowerTools X, please see:
hxxp://arkh.io/xhmg8z

Now the forum is down for mainteance (It had/s a lot of warnings about purchasing).

J-Mac · « **Reply #22 on:** November 14, 2014, 11:24 PM »

OK - Either Macecraft is at it again, or someone is appropriating their name and trying to pull something.

I just received an email - ostensibly from Macecraft - offering their latest - jv16 PowerTools X. Now we have already seen where Jouni - the developer - has moved to Thailand and left his staff stuck to answer questions, all without pay. Why would we believe that he is back developing this program?

Oh - and the URL it tries to send you to is an odd one. Definitely not the old Macecraft site. (I didn't try it - don’t want to catch anything).

Jim

myarmor · « **Reply #23 on:** November 15, 2014, 02:35 PM »

OK - Either Macecraft is at it again, or someone is appropriating their name and trying to pull something.

I just received an email - ostensibly from Macecraft - offering their latest - jv16 PowerTools X. Now we have already seen where Jouni - the developer - has moved to Thailand and left his staff stuck to answer questions, all without pay. Why would we believe that he is back developing this program?

Oh - and the URL it tries to send you to is an odd one. Definitely not the old Macecraft site. (I didn't try it - don’t want to catch anything).

Jim
-J-Mac (November 14, 2014, 11:24 PM)

arkh.io is apparently an url shortener. whois
I haven't tried the links though.
At the bottom of that message you probably noticed a macecraft url.

You know, it's coming soon..or so it says, once a month or so.

Why?? I assume he's continuing to sell nonexistent versions.
If people haven't paid attention, he probably still gets a sale or two.