3 ms·

Actually, it is "pay upfront" that scares many, I believe. Developers are experimenters - love to play and test many things and in case of commercial success, I

by zerr 10y ago

Actually, it is "pay upfront" that scares many, I believe. Developers are experimenters - love to play and test many things and in case of commercial success, I think it will be a no-brainier to pay. So I think models such as "pay after your first 10K (or 100K) revenue" work.

Avshalom 10y ago
Well then Qt is great because it's free, you can ship your app using Qt with out paying a nickel and it keeps being free no matter what your revenue. It only costs money if you want to ship your app with different legal terms.
- lallysingh 10y ago
  Yeah. Qt is far beyond reasonable, and I categorically can't understand the motivations for people who'd rather pay substantially more, with higher risk, to write their own version.
dman 10y ago
Discussions in posts about commercial libraries / tools developers often have extensive discussion about pricing and free alternatives (Threads about SublimeText come to mind). I wonder if the current sad state of developer tooling (stuck in the 70s in many cases) is because of our reluctance to pay for our tools. Would love to hear what others have to say about this.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  I belong to a generation that had to pay for its tools. My first Turbo Pascal for Windows was bought after a few months of saving. Same with other tools. Even open source, I used to pay for the Walnut Creek CD-Roms. Nowadays I still buy software tools and do occasional donations. So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free on one side, but then complain that unless they are selling services or SaaS software no one pays them.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free I'm a (senior) millennial and I'm prepared to pay for tools that are worth it. However, Free (as in freedom) software has come a long way, I won't pay for tooling that is at par or less capable than, with Free software. I think the rise of GPL/Open source - GCC, Linux and Free DBs & languages (and their ecosystems) are to blame; not millennials.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Such tools already existed back then, they were called freeware and Public Domain, or came as gifts in magazine listings or tapes. Also some people would keep on re-installing them past the demo deadline, or crack them, just to avoid paying. But not on the scale that happens today. Linux and GCC would not be as developed as they are if it wasn't for the companies that sell hardware and are willing to pay engineer time to improve them. During GCC early days, most contributors were the ones not wanting to pay for the Solaris SDK, so its development was as fast as Hurd still is today. Regarding languages, that is why commercial tools get all the nice goodies, no one can make a living of selling improved tooling to FOSS developers. Hence why many watch a talk from Bret Viktor and are amazed of his presentations, but we already had such tools in 90's, they just had the sin of being commercial.
      - dman 10y ago
        Is there any way out of this local optimum?
        pjmlp 10y ago
        No if people are willing to live by "worse is better" instead of shell out money to support those selling their tools. You don't see this entitlement to free tools in other professions.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        > Regarding languages, that is why commercial tools get all the nice goodies I mostly don't need the "nice goodies" - which why I don't but them (and I am prepared to buy when I do, or to show support to the developer. I love JetBrains). > no one can make a living of selling improved tooling to FOSS developers Good thing FOSS developers can improve their own tooling; they are developers after all. Freeware and Demoware are hardly comparable to Free & Open Source Software except on price. As a developer, I am empowered when I can fix bugs in my tools and submit a pull request upstream (happened to me 3 times this year alone). What do you do if you run into a bug in Borland Turbo Pascal or QBasic? If you have the energy, submit a bug report and hope it get fixed 4 versions down the line.

by zerr 10y ago

Avshalom 10y ago

Well then Qt is great because it's free, you can ship your app using Qt with out paying a nickel and it keeps being free no matter what your revenue. It only costs money if you want to ship your app with different legal terms.

lallysingh 10y ago
Yeah. Qt is far beyond reasonable, and I categorically can't understand the motivations for people who'd rather pay substantially more, with higher risk, to write their own version.

dman 10y ago

Discussions in posts about commercial libraries / tools developers often have extensive discussion about pricing and free alternatives (Threads about SublimeText come to mind). I wonder if the current sad state of developer tooling (stuck in the 70s in many cases) is because of our reluctance to pay for our tools. Would love to hear what others have to say about this.

pjmlp 10y ago
I belong to a generation that had to pay for its tools. My first Turbo Pascal for Windows was bought after a few months of saving. Same with other tools. Even open source, I used to pay for the Walnut Creek CD-Roms. Nowadays I still buy software tools and do occasional donations. So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free on one side, but then complain that unless they are selling services or SaaS software no one pays them.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > So I cannot understand how the millenials expect to get their tools for free I'm a (senior) millennial and I'm prepared to pay for tools that are worth it. However, Free (as in freedom) software has come a long way, I won't pay for tooling that is at par or less capable than, with Free software. I think the rise of GPL/Open source - GCC, Linux and Free DBs & languages (and their ecosystems) are to blame; not millennials.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Such tools already existed back then, they were called freeware and Public Domain, or came as gifts in magazine listings or tapes. Also some people would keep on re-installing them past the demo deadline, or crack them, just to avoid paying. But not on the scale that happens today. Linux and GCC would not be as developed as they are if it wasn't for the companies that sell hardware and are willing to pay engineer time to improve them. During GCC early days, most contributors were the ones not wanting to pay for the Solaris SDK, so its development was as fast as Hurd still is today. Regarding languages, that is why commercial tools get all the nice goodies, no one can make a living of selling improved tooling to FOSS developers. Hence why many watch a talk from Bret Viktor and are amazed of his presentations, but we already had such tools in 90's, they just had the sin of being commercial.
    - dman 10y ago
      Is there any way out of this local optimum?
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        No if people are willing to live by "worse is better" instead of shell out money to support those selling their tools. You don't see this entitlement to free tools in other professions.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > Regarding languages, that is why commercial tools get all the nice goodies I mostly don't need the "nice goodies" - which why I don't but them (and I am prepared to buy when I do, or to show support to the developer. I love JetBrains). > no one can make a living of selling improved tooling to FOSS developers Good thing FOSS developers can improve their own tooling; they are developers after all. Freeware and Demoware are hardly comparable to Free & Open Source Software except on price. As a developer, I am empowered when I can fix bugs in my tools and submit a pull request upstream (happened to me 3 times this year alone). What do you do if you run into a bug in Borland Turbo Pascal or QBasic? If you have the energy, submit a bug report and hope it get fixed 4 versions down the line.