Very interesting discussion this!  

Regarding donations and laziness, are there any cases of software that accept donations via SMS payments? That is very quick and could bring donations from user groups that don't have access to credit cards. A big problem would be how to collect donations internationally. I've only seen national SMS donation services that you can sign up for (they take a cut out of the donations). Does anyone know if there is such a service that is global?

The contribution level is not great yet, and maybe it never will because I suspect that not that many people need to do what PdfMasher does.

I think PdfMasher could find a very large userbase in the academic world. Reading of journal article pdf's on screen is very, very common. PdfMasher is the first application to offer a somewhat feasible way to convert articles for reading on Kindle, Nook and other small screen readers and tablets. For example, Calibre's built in coversion tools are not at all useful in comparison. PdfMasher still takes more manual and more complex steps than most academic users are able/willing to go through I suspect. But if it would have some smart automatic detections of headers and footnotes then I suspect a lot of users would come rushing. Anyway, I don't want to off-topic this thread into very PdfMasher specific topics so I'll stop here.

Actually, part of this is something I've been thinking about for a long time.

One thing small developers might consider is banding together to create a central purchasing point for their wares. In other words, an app store.

The big problem many people have with buying from an 'unknown' is their understandable reluctance to share their billing information with what could easily be an inadequately secured or honest billing point. That's why they'll often balk at making a $10 purchase from a small business, but think nothing of dropping an Amex card and making a $1000 purchase through Amazon.

Many times I'll see something I want and check to see if the business also makes it available through Amazon. Because if they do, I almost always will purchase  through Amazon rather than directly from the merchant. Why? Because I know Amazon. I worry less about the security on Amazon's shopping cart than I do about the security NiftySoft's unknown ISP provides. And I know I can drag Amazon into any dispute I may have with the merchant about shipping damages or goods not received.  At the very least, I know I can get my money back if there's ever a problem.

Now if developers could work out some arrangement (as an organization) with a reputable and well-known merchant account provider, I think one major barrier to receiving payment might be removed.

Even better would be if you could encourage customers to open an account (like you do with smartphone app stores) such that you don't need to re-key credit card or bank data with each transaction.

I can't speak for everyone, but not having to pull out a card has provided just enough convenience that I've bought many more apps (over 100 to date) for my, and my GF's, iPhone that I would have otherwise. True, most purchases were below $5 each so that had a lot to do with my willingness to take a chance. But not having to think about the actual act of buying something (since the app store makes it feel more like a free download) was also a major factor.

So, maybe it might be a good idea to focus on a trusted and reliable payment mechanism, and get that in place first.

After that, you're free to experiment with different pricing, licensing models, and incentive plans at will.

To recap:

1) Get yourselves organized into a trade group.
2) Get a trusted billing system in place to make it as easy as possible (bordering on no-brainer) for people to pay you.

That's another 2¢ from me.

(One more penny and you'll have a shiny new nickle.   )

As Mouser pointed out, he has neither the desire nor the mindset to become a full fledged entrepreneur. I'm sure he's not alone in that regard. Most people doing creative anything don't want to get involved with business issues. So maybe it's time for you to all get together and get somebody you can trust (because you own them) to take care of it for you...

Authors have agents. Rock stars have labels. Movie stars have guilds.

Why not indy software developers?  

You know sometimes i write these posts and talk about how hard it is to make the donationware concept work and sometimes write as if the approach simply does not work..

But it's totally irresponsible for me to write such things without saying how wonderful it is to be in this community of people who really do make it work.  Everyone who has participated in this forum has helped to make this site work -- and it does work.  It's not perfect and there is a lot we can and should do better at.  But a ton of people have given money and support and their time and energy to make this site work, and there's no place I'd rather be.  And i feel so lucky that all of you have made it such a wonderful and fun place to be.

Forgive my ignorance but don't package managers solve the middle man issue already?

Payments are troublesome but I think incentives are also often a problem. Most of the ideas thrown out are still nagware hoping to lump itself w/ a rare new -ware word, get blogged and get sudden <insert social media/insert blog> effect.

I haven't seen any site where a micro-donation form was linked to the changelogs where people can pay for features they want or hope that their money could sway a developer to tweak a feature they hate and the responsiveness of the developer be displayed in a Klout like display to increase the developer's credibility. Similarly haven't spotted a place where a commenting system differentiates between paying customers and non-paying customers making it clearer to the new visitor what the paying customer's culture is versus people just commenting.

Not that these are solutions, just that in terms of actual attempts, there haven't been many that are donationware-centric. Often times donationware takes some inspiration from freeware and sometimes shareware people go on their own way to tweak how to gain a profit.

Yes, it's a tricky issue. I would say because donationware is well... donations...then it's much more applicable to the concept as long as people understand that they are not bidding so much as voting via their money to not only decide which features they want but hopefully a Klout system allows a better understanding on what paying minorities' demands are as well as open up a setting where people can redistribute their donations to the right credible developer and this system is what jumpstarts a sort of breeding donation-based economics to flourish and encourage a two way route between donators and developers. Something that would be a sharp contrast from the PMS-like donation roulette of most linked or nag-based donationware.

how wonderful it is to be in this community of people who really do make it work.

And we don't say often enough what's probably in all of our minds, which is how much we appreciate what you have done, are doing, and will do.

You're the glue that nails this place together and so basic to our success as a community that you couldn't be stapler.

Just thinking outside the lines for a moment...

I wonder if the notion of "pay what you want" or "please donate" is anywhere near as important to the buyers as it is to those who are making such offers. I ask, because from what I've seen, most people don't seem to care all that much.

I bring this up because in the early days of my company, we had the notion that the big problem with most systems support companies was that they tried to keep their customers "captive." And that they did this by not freely sharing their knowledge with their customers.

As a result, we emphasized "knowledge transfer" as a big part of our sales proposition. This, we argued, was the "right thing" to do from both a business and an ethical perspective.

Guess what?

Hardly anyone cared.

And those that did wanted no part of it. As one senior manager said: "We don't want you to explain to us what you guys do. Or teach our people how to do it. We just want you to keep our systems running - and fix them when they break. That's what we're paying you for."

Another told us "We're not an IT shop. The last thing we want is to have our people getting distracted from what they should be doing because they're getting involved with the stuff you should be doing." (BTW: I liked the way he said it enough I wrote it down.  )

Poof!

There went any illusions our potential clients were actively interested in changing the landscape of the systems support industry like we were.

Something to  think about...

A main point of 40hz which i think is important is:

"most people don't seem to care all that much."

Part of the problem for DonationCoder and Fairware too i suspect, is that there are two groups of people we would like to request support from.

• The first group is the small core group of people who really do care, want to be involved, and provide the most important thing -- spiritual support, camaraderie, encouragement, and often generous financial support.
• The second group is many orders of magnitude larger -- and that's the group of people who use the software, and who are open to making a financial payment.  But for these people, most of them are like 40hz users -- they do not want to hear all about ethics and new financing models, etc.  In fact all this stuff just makes them want to leave and find someone they can make a normal purchase from.  The more you try to do something unusual the more these people will not want to waste the mental energy to deal with you.

Which brings me back to an idea i had a couple of years ago, which would be to make simple but distinct paths for users..

• So imagine a software page where it had a fixed price on it: $29.95 which you click to buy like normal software purchase.
• But also a button saying: Show me alternatives to paying this.
• If they click on that button they have choices like: I want to choose how much to donate; I cannot afford to pay anything now; I am not willing to pay anything but I would still like to use the software; etc.

This isn't really a major change to the functional way things are done.. it's more of an attempt to make a path that is easier and more familiar for "people who don't care".

+1

I think Mouser's idea is a clean and elegant way to both deal with the issue, and possibly change some people's way of thinking in the process.

It's also something that would be relatively simple to implement and experiment with.

At the very least it would go a long way towards moving the basis of this discussion to observable fact and behaviors - and away from the "I feel" nature of many of these conversations.

Why "believe" or "feel" or "suspect" when a little real-world testing could provide much better information? Like James Thurber said: "A pinch of probably is worth a pound of perhaps."

Note: when I used the phrase "don't care" I meant it in the sense of "not being actively concerned about" rather than  "not mattering ever or at all." Just thought I should clarify that point.

So I think this could solve the issue of scaring away the no-nonsense-just-want-to-click-buy people, which would help a lot.

I think this still leaves the most difficult nut to crack -- which is how do you deal with the problem where it takes 10x as much effort (and perceived risk) to donate vs clicking the button that says "i can't/won't donate".

I talk about the approach of trying to fix this in my essay as "work equalization" -- making sure that it's not so much easier to not donate compared to donating.

Right now this principle is used to give people free license keys so they don't have to pay for our software or see any nags -- by giving out a license key after you sign up and register.  But this does create some inconvenience and ill-will.

It's not an ideal solution because it annoys people.  It would be nice to find an alternative approach that wasn't so annoying to people but still achieved the goal of having some way to make people not choose the path of least resistance of not donating.

It would be nice to find an alternative approach that wasn't so annoying to people but still achieved the goal of having some way to make people not choose the path of least resistance of not donating.

Humble Indie bundle is one good promotion theme that is running these days to raise the funds for developers. I don't know what will happen to this promotion method if it gets saturated.

On the other hand, people who have no guarantee how much their donations might impact a smaller NANY project or an older less used AHK program would more likely be less urged to donate to that specific developer unless the program gains a radical overhaul or it's via a bundle and a regular donator just happened to catch up on the thread that introduced all these.

Again, what is the real goal here?

Are you looking to:

Reward/punish coders for certain behaviors?
Locate and obtain interesting software?
Get your software out where it can be found?
Raise public awareness about coders and coding?
Make some money?
Not lose money?
Just break even?
Get big?
Stay small?
Act as a springboard for a commercial software venture?
Become an adjunct of the OS or FOSS movement?
Mainly hang out and rap with like-minded people?
Provide a trusted buying point for independent coder products?

I ask because a lot of this seems to be going in many of different directions. So...how about starting the ball rolling by coming up with a position statement or manifesto that spells out the big goal or goals with the ultimate aim of coming up with a concrete (as in doable) project with a workable roadmap for how to get there?

Coders are logical, organized people. Or so I'm told. Why not treat this 'problem' the same way you would a major coding project and see where that leads?

Just thinking out loud here...

Addendum: I really like the humble indie bundle. Ive bought in on more than one of those. But I think it sends the wrong message sometimes. Too much emphasis on "humble" and "indie" and "bargain" and nowhere near enough on the exceptional quality, variety, and value to be found there.

Gotta stop with the "Aw shucks!" routine and start claiming your rightful place up there with the so-called big players. Because if you're not doing something good enough to stand on it's own merits, why bother at all?

Seriously guys! You have got to stop putting yourselves down so much. You need to build a reputation that you're bright, responsive, and innovative. And that your code is as good as anything else that's out there. And 90% of that reputation can be had just by saying it's so.

Many times the only differences between a professional and an amateur is that the professional thinks of him or herself as a professional, acts accordingly - and has a business card.