4 ms·
I wasn't suggesting combining all their apps in to one stable. I was suggesting creating a larger company that has working conditions that suit the kind of pers
by jackvalentine 11y ago
I wasn't suggesting combining all their apps in to one stable. I was suggesting creating a larger company that has working conditions that suit the kind of person who is an indy developer. Most (all?) of their current apps would probably need to disappear.
It wouldn't be the same as working for yourself, but it wouldn't be the same as working for some faceless corporation either.
- jasode 11y ago> Most (all?) of their current apps would probably need to disappear. If the very product they're trying to sell needs to disappear, then your recommendations of "consolidate into worker co-op" or "create a larger company" does not have any useful meaning. You've got cause-&-effect of product and business structure backwards. What happens in the real world: 1st) have a viable product that sells for sustainable revenue ---> 2nd) amount of incoming money helps guide decisions about structuring the company to be sole-proprietor vs traditional incorporated vs workers cooperative. The reverse direction of... 1st) organize a workers co-op ---> 2nd) sell something-I-don't-know-what-it-could-be-but-your-current-apps-need-to-disappear. ... is an academic dead end. If you're going to hand wave away where the money comes from to pay the salaries of the workers owning the co-op, it doesn't matter that they formed a co-op for better working conditions. The article was about sustainable revenue in the long tail of the app store. A workers co-op is an unrelated tangent and doesn't solve how to survive in that long tail.
- jackvalentine 11y agoI think you might have realised I'm not really responding to the article, more of a "perhaps if the indy app scene isn't really a viable thing any more they could do this..." thought bubble.