5 ms·

You are basically asking them: "I love your work. Please add an option so I can use it, benefit from it, then leave and never pay you again."

nicpottier 9y ago
This is not an unreasonable ask though. You should certainly think twice to pigeon holing yourself with any technology that you do not have full rights to and will be lost without a specific provider. It does make figuring out your business model more complicated, but having SOME story for what will happen if you go out of business or start being a bad actor is something you need to figure out. It isn't impossible though, our SAAS is Open Source and we survive, though yes, some customers do choose to self host. You just end up with fewer enterprise customers and more smaller clients.
- sametmax 9y ago
  I understand the request, because I would not use the service myself for the same reasons. But let's be real, if it became open source, I would just host it and never pay for it. They would have to do more work for less money. Hardly fair. They can always start with a strong commercial offer, then later address the user locking issue. For them, I think it's a way better strategy. FOSS first is very hard to monetize. The Libre community is a terrible customer.
  - hasenj 9y ago
    If I make software that enables you to create things, then the software is mine and I can charge you for using it, but what you make using my software is yours and you can do whatever you want with it. Doing it the other way around is wrong.
startupdiscuss 9y ago
I will only leave it and never pay if something terrible happens: the price is jacked up, service suffers or I create such a great thing that I need commodity pricing. But its worse than that: if I don't have the security that I can leave, I won't dedicate time to use this. I am happy to pay for the convenience and to try to create MVPs or proofs of service etc. Anyway, it hardly matters what I think. Imagine what all the students and start ups think when they see it.
- sametmax 9y ago
  It's ok, you are probably no the target for the service. If you want control, you don't use a closed source saas RAD. I would not use the product for myself. I would hate been locked down. But I can see the value for others. For some, having one easy but clear solution is the important value.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Customers aren't that black and white. I used to work for a SaaS company, and having the option of requesting the source and copy of the database was crucial to land quite a few of our contracts. That said, I agree with you that it's probably not their best approach right now. Even if it pains me to say so :)
    - infinite8s 9y ago
      There are definitely companies that provide an escrowing service for their platform (in case they go out of business, etc).
  - amenod 9y ago
    I don't think being locked down to a service is that important in this case. I see Anvil as a potentially valuable tool to create prototypes, to quickly iterate on an idea... then when it is validated, you can build it with more conventional (and safer in terms of future) tools.
    - _red 9y ago
      Yes, its funny but I think of python itself as an exceptional good "prototyping" language. Thats not to say it can't be used in production, but I think the real power of python comes from its ability to go from 0-100 in a very short amount of time (powered by all the great python libs). So in a sense, Anvil is valuable at its price point for just as a web prototyping service. Most new developers obsess on things like "scalability" and "MVC separation", etc and in 95% of cases their creations never ever generate enough traffic to warrant any of that. I see Anvil as a tool that would allow developers to sketch out an idea, quickly iterate features based on feedback, and when warranted, move to a full production stack.
geebee 9y ago
Yes, that's true. But that does describe Rails. A pure Python web framework, integrated, with a python to javascript transpiler is very likely to emerge, but I can say with almost total certainty that it will have to be open source. I don't know any actual numbers, but I think DHH and basecamp almost certainly profited from the popularity of Rails. That's probably up for grabs, since integrated web environments in non-js languages may become a big deal over the next decade.
- sametmax 9y ago
  DHH and basecamp made money because they are explicitly not open source and you have to pay for it. The fact they are built with RoR is an implementation details. 37signals was very good at communication, Ror or not. Their blog and books were fantastic. ROR as a FOSS may have helped, but I doubt it was instrumental.
  - geebee 9y ago
    yes, exactly, they found a way to monetize a product other than their framework, and they used the OSS framework to draw attention to the non os project. Whether that was deliberate or unintentional, I don't know, but it certainly worked out. EDIT: I agree with you that the product is good, and that the communication was excellent, but I disagree that the success of ROR was minor to the success of that company. It brought a tremendous amount of attention.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      But here the RAD is the product. Their end game. Basecamp was the product, and ROR just a by product of it. Complety different.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

nicpottier 9y ago

This is not an unreasonable ask though. You should certainly think twice to pigeon holing yourself with any technology that you do not have full rights to and will be lost without a specific provider. It does make figuring out your business model more complicated, but having SOME story for what will happen if you go out of business or start being a bad actor is something you need to figure out. It isn't impossible though, our SAAS is Open Source and we survive, though yes, some customers do choose to self host. You just end up with fewer enterprise customers and more smaller clients.

sametmax 9y ago
I understand the request, because I would not use the service myself for the same reasons. But let's be real, if it became open source, I would just host it and never pay for it. They would have to do more work for less money. Hardly fair. They can always start with a strong commercial offer, then later address the user locking issue. For them, I think it's a way better strategy. FOSS first is very hard to monetize. The Libre community is a terrible customer.
- hasenj 9y ago
  If I make software that enables you to create things, then the software is mine and I can charge you for using it, but what you make using my software is yours and you can do whatever you want with it. Doing it the other way around is wrong.

startupdiscuss 9y ago

I will only leave it and never pay if something terrible happens: the price is jacked up, service suffers or I create such a great thing that I need commodity pricing. But its worse than that: if I don't have the security that I can leave, I won't dedicate time to use this. I am happy to pay for the convenience and to try to create MVPs or proofs of service etc. Anyway, it hardly matters what I think. Imagine what all the students and start ups think when they see it.

sametmax 9y ago
It's ok, you are probably no the target for the service. If you want control, you don't use a closed source saas RAD. I would not use the product for myself. I would hate been locked down. But I can see the value for others. For some, having one easy but clear solution is the important value.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Customers aren't that black and white. I used to work for a SaaS company, and having the option of requesting the source and copy of the database was crucial to land quite a few of our contracts. That said, I agree with you that it's probably not their best approach right now. Even if it pains me to say so :)
  - infinite8s 9y ago
    There are definitely companies that provide an escrowing service for their platform (in case they go out of business, etc).
- amenod 9y ago
  I don't think being locked down to a service is that important in this case. I see Anvil as a potentially valuable tool to create prototypes, to quickly iterate on an idea... then when it is validated, you can build it with more conventional (and safer in terms of future) tools.
  - _red 9y ago
    Yes, its funny but I think of python itself as an exceptional good "prototyping" language. Thats not to say it can't be used in production, but I think the real power of python comes from its ability to go from 0-100 in a very short amount of time (powered by all the great python libs). So in a sense, Anvil is valuable at its price point for just as a web prototyping service. Most new developers obsess on things like "scalability" and "MVC separation", etc and in 95% of cases their creations never ever generate enough traffic to warrant any of that. I see Anvil as a tool that would allow developers to sketch out an idea, quickly iterate features based on feedback, and when warranted, move to a full production stack.

geebee 9y ago

Yes, that's true. But that does describe Rails. A pure Python web framework, integrated, with a python to javascript transpiler is very likely to emerge, but I can say with almost total certainty that it will have to be open source. I don't know any actual numbers, but I think DHH and basecamp almost certainly profited from the popularity of Rails. That's probably up for grabs, since integrated web environments in non-js languages may become a big deal over the next decade.

sametmax 9y ago
DHH and basecamp made money because they are explicitly not open source and you have to pay for it. The fact they are built with RoR is an implementation details. 37signals was very good at communication, Ror or not. Their blog and books were fantastic. ROR as a FOSS may have helped, but I doubt it was instrumental.
- geebee 9y ago
  yes, exactly, they found a way to monetize a product other than their framework, and they used the OSS framework to draw attention to the non os project. Whether that was deliberate or unintentional, I don't know, but it certainly worked out. EDIT: I agree with you that the product is good, and that the communication was excellent, but I disagree that the success of ROR was minor to the success of that company. It brought a tremendous amount of attention.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    But here the RAD is the product. Their end game. Basecamp was the product, and ROR just a by product of it. Complety different.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]