4 ms·

You guys should use the business model that the makers of Sketch use (Bohemian Coding). You pay a one-time fee $99 to download the app with all available featu

You guys should use the business model that the makers of Sketch use (Bohemian Coding). You pay a one-time fee $99 to download the app with all available features and new features for one year (365 days). After 365 days, when the Bohemian Coding team builds new features you have to pay $99 again to get those features... etcetera. It's a great business model because you get the best of both worlds (one-time, and subscription model). This gives you capital to get started, and bootstraps your company as the software matures.

boudewijnrempt 9y ago
That's a bit hard when all the code is licensed as GPLv2+ and there are about 600 copyright holders :)
- mikekchar 9y ago
  I don't think it's a terribly good idea for Krita, but you can make it work. GPL does not stop anyone from selling either the binaries or the source (you just have to supply the source if you supply the binaries). What theoretically brings the price to zero is that you don't have exclusive right to sell -- other people can undercut you. However, in practice, you can actually sell the application because quite a few people don't care if they can get it for free. For an example check out TOME [0]. It's a GPL game that's also available on Steam. It has a kind of online mode and the author has stated that something like 70% of the people who play online have paid. What I find even more interesting is that he has exclusive DLC for paying customers and it is also licensed under the GPL. You can only get the content from the author and only if you have paid. Now, nothing is legally stopping others from distributing that content, but nobody does as far as I can tell. One other interesting thing is that while you can't stop people from undercutting your price, you can stop them from selling under your trademark. So if you were Krita, you could specify that only officially licensed versions could be called Krita, and you are free to distribute the code under a different name. Branding is worth something (strangely) and this can keep your customers. Like I said, I don't think it's a good idea for Krita, but it's far from impossible. [0] - https://te4.org/ https://te4.org/
GuiA 9y ago
Krita is free and open source, deliberately so. How do you see that model working while retaining those 2 aspects?
- SXX 9y ago
  It's not like this would work for project like Krita, but there are free and open source projects that sell binaries and updates. E.g Synergy: https://symless.com/synergy https://symless.com/synergy
  - pkaye 9y ago
    Krita does have a paid app in the Windows App store plus they have a one on Steam called Gemini. But I'd guess they don't make a lot on this. Something like Synergy primarily makes money because it gets sold to business which are more willing to spend.

boudewijnrempt 9y ago

That's a bit hard when all the code is licensed as GPLv2+ and there are about 600 copyright holders :)

mikekchar 9y ago
I don't think it's a terribly good idea for Krita, but you can make it work. GPL does not stop anyone from selling either the binaries or the source (you just have to supply the source if you supply the binaries). What theoretically brings the price to zero is that you don't have exclusive right to sell -- other people can undercut you. However, in practice, you can actually sell the application because quite a few people don't care if they can get it for free. For an example check out TOME [0]. It's a GPL game that's also available on Steam. It has a kind of online mode and the author has stated that something like 70% of the people who play online have paid. What I find even more interesting is that he has exclusive DLC for paying customers and it is also licensed under the GPL. You can only get the content from the author and only if you have paid. Now, nothing is legally stopping others from distributing that content, but nobody does as far as I can tell. One other interesting thing is that while you can't stop people from undercutting your price, you can stop them from selling under your trademark. So if you were Krita, you could specify that only officially licensed versions could be called Krita, and you are free to distribute the code under a different name. Branding is worth something (strangely) and this can keep your customers. Like I said, I don't think it's a good idea for Krita, but it's far from impossible. [0] - https://te4.org/ https://te4.org/

GuiA 9y ago

Krita is free and open source, deliberately so. How do you see that model working while retaining those 2 aspects?

SXX 9y ago
It's not like this would work for project like Krita, but there are free and open source projects that sell binaries and updates. E.g Synergy: https://symless.com/synergy https://symless.com/synergy
- pkaye 9y ago
  Krita does have a paid app in the Windows App store plus they have a one on Steam called Gemini. But I'd guess they don't make a lot on this. Something like Synergy primarily makes money because it gets sold to business which are more willing to spend.