4 ms·

imo this kind of stuff is better used as contentmarketing / imagething for you actual job any small consulting job beats several thousand downloads

andrewstuart 10y ago
iconfinder does $150,000 per month - the model does not seem too dissimilar. https://www.iconfinder.com/ https://www.iconfinder.com/
- purple-dragon 10y ago
  Iconfinder has 1.5 million icons and tens of thousands of fonts. They have both a large catalogue and a large customer demographic (e.g., anyone looking for an icon for a presentation, a flyer, software). Animista lets people that write HTML/CSS/webapps interactively choose or tune the settings of a relatively small set of CSS animations styles. It's like a convenience table of contents for what one would typically find in scattered various CodePen examples. It wouldn't make much money.
  - andrewstuart 10y ago
    People hand over money when you offer something that they want, in a convenient, easily buyable form, at a price that appeals. It's "programmer think" to equate sellability with the number of icons/animation in the catalogue.
    - purple-dragon 10y ago
      It's a matter of value. There is nothing near 150k/mo of recurring revenue or sustainable value here. Edit: And even though it's not what I was saying, I don't know why you think that kind of thinking is 'programmer think'. That's a bit disparaging to programmers, no? The ones I know aren't that shallow.
      - Nadya 10y ago
        >There is nothing near 150k/mo of recurring revenue or sustainable value here. $1k/mo > Any $/mo > $0/mo >>>> Negative $/mo spent on hosting There are many people who would pay to use the code generated by this tool - even if it can be trivially grabbed via Inspect Element. It seems that's a common sentiment among posters on this topic - and I agree with them. It might seem silly to charge for 3-step keyframes (0->40->100 on many of them) with different timing functions but people will pay for just that.
        purple-dragon 10y ago
        Sure they may pay, and that's believable—but I stand by my statement that it won't make much money.

andrewstuart 10y ago

iconfinder does $150,000 per month - the model does not seem too dissimilar. https://www.iconfinder.com/ https://www.iconfinder.com/

purple-dragon 10y ago
Iconfinder has 1.5 million icons and tens of thousands of fonts. They have both a large catalogue and a large customer demographic (e.g., anyone looking for an icon for a presentation, a flyer, software). Animista lets people that write HTML/CSS/webapps interactively choose or tune the settings of a relatively small set of CSS animations styles. It's like a convenience table of contents for what one would typically find in scattered various CodePen examples. It wouldn't make much money.
- andrewstuart 10y ago
  People hand over money when you offer something that they want, in a convenient, easily buyable form, at a price that appeals. It's "programmer think" to equate sellability with the number of icons/animation in the catalogue.
  - purple-dragon 10y ago
    It's a matter of value. There is nothing near 150k/mo of recurring revenue or sustainable value here. Edit: And even though it's not what I was saying, I don't know why you think that kind of thinking is 'programmer think'. That's a bit disparaging to programmers, no? The ones I know aren't that shallow.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      >There is nothing near 150k/mo of recurring revenue or sustainable value here. $1k/mo > Any $/mo > $0/mo >>>> Negative $/mo spent on hosting There are many people who would pay to use the code generated by this tool - even if it can be trivially grabbed via Inspect Element. It seems that's a common sentiment among posters on this topic - and I agree with them. It might seem silly to charge for 3-step keyframes (0->40->100 on many of them) with different timing functions but people will pay for just that.
      - purple-dragon 10y ago
        Sure they may pay, and that's believable—but I stand by my statement that it won't make much money.