10 ms·

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linki

As an indie dev of desktop software, I have grown tired of complaints that my products aren't free as in speech and beer. I now reply to such criticism by linking to this post: https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/ https://fman.io/blog/dear-comrade/

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
Interesting that you got downvotes for a statement like this on a forum supposedly rooted in the business of software.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Because most want to get paid, not to pay for the tools they use.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    Exactly, there is some cognitive dissonance going on.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      It's because obviously the shit I need to get my shit done should be open source or free by now, sheesh it's 2018 not in the dark ages however of course the serious business need I am fulfilling is novel and very deserving of a good chunk of cash.
      - teddyh 8y ago
        To put it more concisely: Everybody wants to commoditize their complements.
- gkya 8y ago
  The content of the link is FUD. He portrays FOSS as if it was like the exploitation schemes the ad supported free stuff, saying: "But in a world where everything is free, we are the product." I did downvote him, although I'd not disagree with him (or anyone else) preferring to produce closed-source software. He could've justified himself w/o telling lies about the other side.
pjmlp 8y ago
Love the link. It is easier to find people willing to pay for software when focusing on Apple and Microsoft platforms. How has been your experience regarding consumers per platform?
- mherrmann 8y ago
  Thanks! :-) Apple users are more willing to pay in my experience.
merb 8y ago
I can understand how you feel and I also think your blog post is correct in many ways. However I think software should be reasonably priced which is most often not the case. And also people can't pay everybody 5-10 dollar/euro for everything, we would quickly need to pay thousands of dollars/euros yearly to access/use everything. That's why I think sometimes having another way of "paying", like through ads or maybe some kind of crowdsourced project is a good alternative for some things.
- paulcole 8y ago
  Maybe you just need fewer $5-10 dollar/month things than you think? At that price you could have 100-200 of them before “quickly” needing to pay thousands of dollars yearly.
  - deepakkarki 8y ago
    100-200 services would add up to $1000/mo not per year.
    - paulcole 8y ago
      duh, I am an idiot. Too early.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    I have 1278 packages installed on the computer I'm using now it takes 11 items 5-10 bucks a month each to spend 1000 dollars annually. Thanks open source.
- IncRnd 8y ago
  Maybe you don't need everything.
- TimJYoung 8y ago
  It would be competitively priced if everyone started charging for their software and the market filled back up with participants. The concept of free software has decimated the software industry by entrenching existing players and allowing them to exist unchallenged, so of course it has resulted in higher prices from the remaining companies.
greysteil 8y ago
Great blog post - thanks for writing it. I've had the same experience with people asking for an MIT license on dependabot-core (the public repo that holds the core logic for my SaaS business, but which has no license and a comment saying those who wish to use it for commercial gain should contact me instead). I already give the product away for free to open source projects and anyone using it in a personal capacity, but for a small number of people that's not enough. Free software is a wonderful thing - it's fantastic that our community shares its work so widely and generously. It is not, however, the only, or the best, model for creating innovation at all times. I'm able to work full time on Dependabot because by providing it as SaaS I can pay myself a wage and by owning the codebase I can protect myself from a larger player copying my work. There's no doubt in my mind that enabling me to work on the product full time is a better outcome for the world than a license that would let others distribute and profit from it.
- mherrmann 8y ago
  I very much agree, especially on your point that the world is better for you being able to work on your product.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  As a general point, please put a license on your contributions if you put them on github. Don't much care what it is, and I don't mind paying, but don't make me do a song and dance to see what your price is. Especially if you are already giving it away to open source projects -- my bet is most people who see "call me" as a clause will move on, even people you are actually trilled to help. AGPLv3 would be a decent suggestion, but even your own license wouldn't be bad either.
  - greysteil 8y ago
    Totally agree on licenses and transparent pricing in general, but I think you've missed the context here. If a commercial entity wants to add the core functionality of my product to their offering then there's definitely going to have to be a negotiation first. AGPLv3 wouldn't be appropriate, as the commercial entity's code being open source isn't a material consideration for me. (The license text I was referring to is here: https://github.com/dependabot/dependabot-core#license https://github.com/dependabot/dependabot-core#license. I could hire a lawyer and put a proper, proprietary license on the repo but I'm bootstrapped and don't think it's necessary.)
matheusmoreira 8y ago
Paying for software may be moral, but it certainly isn't natural. As the game's developer, you're the scare resource. Making copies of the finished game itself costs approximately $0. Copyright makes your game artificially scarce so that you can charge for it. It's a phony concept that exists to support an unnatural business model. The real business model should be players paying you directly to develop and update the game they want to play for as long as they want to play it.
- kaibee 8y ago
  > but it certainly isn't natural. So what? Nothing about software development is 'natural'. I don't even know what definition of 'natural' you're using here. > It's a phony concept that exists to support an unnatural business model. It's a social construct that we've adopted in society because it allows for things we like. > The real business model should be players paying you directly to develop and update the game they want to play for as long as they want to play it. This is a valid business model for some games, but there are many games that would not exist without such a model. I'd prefer that those games exist instead of insisting that reality should be the way that fits nicely with my arbitrary mental models.
  - renox 8y ago
    > Nothing about software development is 'natural' Why do you say so? > I don't even know what definition of 'natural' you're using here I think that he's talking about the ease of copying software: it's quite hard to make people pay for something so easy to duplicate..
    - afarrell 8y ago
      > > Nothing about software development is 'natural' > Why do you say so? Because building even the simplest computers requires large-scale industrial processes. All of this is based on a social/economic system that required the intelligent design of many many people and organizations.
    - malloryerik 8y ago
theshadowknows 8y ago
I don’t understand when people complain about software that isn’t free. You want it free? Go make it yourself and give it away...oh, you can’t make it yourself? Maybe that’s why it’s not free.
- rootlocus 8y ago
  > oh, you can’t make it yourself? Maybe that’s why it’s not free. That's not a complete argument. Anyone can mop the streets, but we still pay for their services.
- soulchild37 8y ago
  Love this!
- BTeam 8y ago
  Until someone actually do it, and better. Good luck monetize your proprietary alternative then!
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    You're perhaps forgetting that people use price as a value indicator. If you take FOSS and package it for sale then people may well buy it who wouldn't "use that shitty free software". Humans are complex beasts.
    - arcturus17 8y ago
      Or you know, the FOSS alternative might still be 100x weaker than the propietary incumbent. I'd love to ditch Adobe products but Gimp and Inkscape don't quite cut it. "Goodbye to your propietary business" applies when you have a commoditized product that's easy to replicate feature-by-feature. In which case this is not a free vs propietary problem - another propietary competitor could leave you in the dust just as bad - it's a general vision and execution problem.
  - theshadowknows 8y ago
    iTunes
gitgud 8y ago
Amazing how you have to justify getting money for work. Reminds me of the Nomad List article. "Why isn't Nomad List free?" https://nomadlist.com/help https://nomadlist.com/help
hammerha 8y ago
I've just tried fman and I love it. I've never heard about this tool before. I'm pretty sure that you would be able to sell more if you market it a bit more. Thanks for the software!
- mherrmann 8y ago
  That's great to hear. Thanks!
leesalminen 8y ago
I love that post. Also, just bought a license (and subscription for updates). Product looks awesome. Installing right now and am going to use it today!
- mherrmann 8y ago
  Wow. Thanks!!
dick_sucker2 8y ago
Nice idea! It reminds me of Sublime.
andyidsinga 8y ago
(sorry - I little off topic) Just curious, how did you come to your current pricing? (I saw your blog post about sublime)
- mherrmann 8y ago
  I'm not sure if you mean the prices themselves ($18/12) or the scheme "perpetual license + optionally updates for $x/year". Feel free to hit me up on twitter @m_herrmann.
  - andyidsinga 8y ago
    I was thinking mostly about the $18 license. More generally though, your process on pricing in general would be cool to learn about. For instance - sources of inspiration from "the literature" (ex. Strategy and tactics of pricing), past experience, user price sensitivity testing etc. thanks - appreciate your response and its cool to see you building and selling your software!
    - mherrmann 8y ago
      I see. I arrived at the $18 through trial and error. It's very new though. It used to be $14, which was way too low. Following common startup advice, I raised to $28. Sales halved so there was no advantage. So now I'm trying $18.
      - andyidsinga 8y ago
        Right on -- thanks!
zerr 8y ago
As for the security (against illegal copying), I'm thinking having a basic stuff - so it won't be very easy to crack, but also it shouldn't be very hard, so people in 3rd world countries are able to use it - these aren't the loss sales anyway, and also help in popularization. What might be a reasonable price in the west, might be worth of monthly salary for some living in poor countries - I wouldn't want to charge anything to such people.
- slig 8y ago
  Maybe you can create a page on your software website "$softwarename key generator" or something like that. And on that page you can give away a free key for those that are going to pirate it anyway. Bonus points for having detailed statistics about the wannabe pirates.
  - zerr 8y ago
    Not sure, that might be too easy - maybe some potential buyer will use it as well?
    - slig 8y ago
      That's indeed a possibility. But if the potential buyer is searching for cracks, I'd say the chances of him buying are very low. Maybe offer a heavy discount, or a non-commercial license.
gkya 8y ago
You release fman on Linux, so you use at least some open source libraries. I wonder which ones are those and what is your policy of transferring a share of your earnings from your project to them. Also I suggest anybody using this software with a paid subscription to evaluate this bit from the EULA: > fman is provided as-is. You are using it at your sole risk. We give no warranty of any kind. You agree that we shall not be liable for any damages related to fman. Source: https://fman.io/eula https://fman.io/eula Also, stop this FUD already. Anybody can release software however they want, free, libre or not, but this attitude that I quote from your link is plain wrong. > We all like free stuff. But in a world where everything is free, we are the product. We're talking about FOSS software here, not about Facebook or Google. If you don't want people "bashing a little guy who's trying to innovate", you can quit spreading misinformation about people whose gratutiuous libraries and kernels you use (yes every platform you release to uses FOSS somewhere).

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

Interesting that you got downvotes for a statement like this on a forum supposedly rooted in the business of software.

pjmlp 8y ago
Because most want to get paid, not to pay for the tools they use.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  Exactly, there is some cognitive dissonance going on.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    It's because obviously the shit I need to get my shit done should be open source or free by now, sheesh it's 2018 not in the dark ages however of course the serious business need I am fulfilling is novel and very deserving of a good chunk of cash.
    - teddyh 8y ago
      To put it more concisely: Everybody wants to commoditize their complements.
gkya 8y ago
The content of the link is FUD. He portrays FOSS as if it was like the exploitation schemes the ad supported free stuff, saying: "But in a world where everything is free, we are the product." I did downvote him, although I'd not disagree with him (or anyone else) preferring to produce closed-source software. He could've justified himself w/o telling lies about the other side.

pjmlp 8y ago

Love the link. It is easier to find people willing to pay for software when focusing on Apple and Microsoft platforms. How has been your experience regarding consumers per platform?

mherrmann 8y ago
Thanks! :-) Apple users are more willing to pay in my experience.

merb 8y ago

I can understand how you feel and I also think your blog post is correct in many ways. However I think software should be reasonably priced which is most often not the case. And also people can't pay everybody 5-10 dollar/euro for everything, we would quickly need to pay thousands of dollars/euros yearly to access/use everything. That's why I think sometimes having another way of "paying", like through ads or maybe some kind of crowdsourced project is a good alternative for some things.

paulcole 8y ago
Maybe you just need fewer $5-10 dollar/month things than you think? At that price you could have 100-200 of them before “quickly” needing to pay thousands of dollars yearly.
- deepakkarki 8y ago
  100-200 services would add up to $1000/mo not per year.
  - paulcole 8y ago
    duh, I am an idiot. Too early.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  I have 1278 packages installed on the computer I'm using now it takes 11 items 5-10 bucks a month each to spend 1000 dollars annually. Thanks open source.
IncRnd 8y ago
Maybe you don't need everything.
TimJYoung 8y ago
It would be competitively priced if everyone started charging for their software and the market filled back up with participants. The concept of free software has decimated the software industry by entrenching existing players and allowing them to exist unchallenged, so of course it has resulted in higher prices from the remaining companies.

greysteil 8y ago

Great blog post - thanks for writing it. I've had the same experience with people asking for an MIT license on dependabot-core (the public repo that holds the core logic for my SaaS business, but which has no license and a comment saying those who wish to use it for commercial gain should contact me instead). I already give the product away for free to open source projects and anyone using it in a personal capacity, but for a small number of people that's not enough. Free software is a wonderful thing - it's fantastic that our community shares its work so widely and generously. It is not, however, the only, or the best, model for creating innovation at all times. I'm able to work full time on Dependabot because by providing it as SaaS I can pay myself a wage and by owning the codebase I can protect myself from a larger player copying my work. There's no doubt in my mind that enabling me to work on the product full time is a better outcome for the world than a license that would let others distribute and profit from it.

mherrmann 8y ago
I very much agree, especially on your point that the world is better for you being able to work on your product.
tomjen3 8y ago
As a general point, please put a license on your contributions if you put them on github. Don't much care what it is, and I don't mind paying, but don't make me do a song and dance to see what your price is. Especially if you are already giving it away to open source projects -- my bet is most people who see "call me" as a clause will move on, even people you are actually trilled to help. AGPLv3 would be a decent suggestion, but even your own license wouldn't be bad either.
- greysteil 8y ago
  Totally agree on licenses and transparent pricing in general, but I think you've missed the context here. If a commercial entity wants to add the core functionality of my product to their offering then there's definitely going to have to be a negotiation first. AGPLv3 wouldn't be appropriate, as the commercial entity's code being open source isn't a material consideration for me. (The license text I was referring to is here: https://github.com/dependabot/dependabot-core#license https://github.com/dependabot/dependabot-core#license. I could hire a lawyer and put a proper, proprietary license on the repo but I'm bootstrapped and don't think it's necessary.)

matheusmoreira 8y ago

Paying for software may be moral, but it certainly isn't natural. As the game's developer, you're the scare resource. Making copies of the finished game itself costs approximately $0. Copyright makes your game artificially scarce so that you can charge for it. It's a phony concept that exists to support an unnatural business model. The real business model should be players paying you directly to develop and update the game they want to play for as long as they want to play it.

kaibee 8y ago
> but it certainly isn't natural. So what? Nothing about software development is 'natural'. I don't even know what definition of 'natural' you're using here. > It's a phony concept that exists to support an unnatural business model. It's a social construct that we've adopted in society because it allows for things we like. > The real business model should be players paying you directly to develop and update the game they want to play for as long as they want to play it. This is a valid business model for some games, but there are many games that would not exist without such a model. I'd prefer that those games exist instead of insisting that reality should be the way that fits nicely with my arbitrary mental models.
- renox 8y ago
  > Nothing about software development is 'natural' Why do you say so? > I don't even know what definition of 'natural' you're using here I think that he's talking about the ease of copying software: it's quite hard to make people pay for something so easy to duplicate..
  - afarrell 8y ago
    > > Nothing about software development is 'natural' > Why do you say so? Because building even the simplest computers requires large-scale industrial processes. All of this is based on a social/economic system that required the intelligent design of many many people and organizations.
  - malloryerik 8y ago

theshadowknows 8y ago

I don’t understand when people complain about software that isn’t free. You want it free? Go make it yourself and give it away...oh, you can’t make it yourself? Maybe that’s why it’s not free.

rootlocus 8y ago
> oh, you can’t make it yourself? Maybe that’s why it’s not free. That's not a complete argument. Anyone can mop the streets, but we still pay for their services.
soulchild37 8y ago
Love this!
BTeam 8y ago
Until someone actually do it, and better. Good luck monetize your proprietary alternative then!
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  You're perhaps forgetting that people use price as a value indicator. If you take FOSS and package it for sale then people may well buy it who wouldn't "use that shitty free software". Humans are complex beasts.
  - arcturus17 8y ago
    Or you know, the FOSS alternative might still be 100x weaker than the propietary incumbent. I'd love to ditch Adobe products but Gimp and Inkscape don't quite cut it. "Goodbye to your propietary business" applies when you have a commoditized product that's easy to replicate feature-by-feature. In which case this is not a free vs propietary problem - another propietary competitor could leave you in the dust just as bad - it's a general vision and execution problem.
- theshadowknows 8y ago
  iTunes

gitgud 8y ago

Amazing how you have to justify getting money for work. Reminds me of the Nomad List article. "Why isn't Nomad List free?" https://nomadlist.com/help https://nomadlist.com/help

hammerha 8y ago

I've just tried fman and I love it. I've never heard about this tool before. I'm pretty sure that you would be able to sell more if you market it a bit more. Thanks for the software!

mherrmann 8y ago
That's great to hear. Thanks!

leesalminen 8y ago

I love that post. Also, just bought a license (and subscription for updates). Product looks awesome. Installing right now and am going to use it today!

mherrmann 8y ago
Wow. Thanks!!

dick_sucker2 8y ago

Nice idea! It reminds me of Sublime.

andyidsinga 8y ago

(sorry - I little off topic) Just curious, how did you come to your current pricing? (I saw your blog post about sublime)

mherrmann 8y ago
I'm not sure if you mean the prices themselves ($18/12) or the scheme "perpetual license + optionally updates for $x/year". Feel free to hit me up on twitter @m_herrmann.
- andyidsinga 8y ago
  I was thinking mostly about the $18 license. More generally though, your process on pricing in general would be cool to learn about. For instance - sources of inspiration from "the literature" (ex. Strategy and tactics of pricing), past experience, user price sensitivity testing etc. thanks - appreciate your response and its cool to see you building and selling your software!
  - mherrmann 8y ago
    I see. I arrived at the $18 through trial and error. It's very new though. It used to be $14, which was way too low. Following common startup advice, I raised to $28. Sales halved so there was no advantage. So now I'm trying $18.
    - andyidsinga 8y ago
      Right on -- thanks!

zerr 8y ago

As for the security (against illegal copying), I'm thinking having a basic stuff - so it won't be very easy to crack, but also it shouldn't be very hard, so people in 3rd world countries are able to use it - these aren't the loss sales anyway, and also help in popularization. What might be a reasonable price in the west, might be worth of monthly salary for some living in poor countries - I wouldn't want to charge anything to such people.

slig 8y ago
Maybe you can create a page on your software website "$softwarename key generator" or something like that. And on that page you can give away a free key for those that are going to pirate it anyway. Bonus points for having detailed statistics about the wannabe pirates.
- zerr 8y ago
  Not sure, that might be too easy - maybe some potential buyer will use it as well?
  - slig 8y ago
    That's indeed a possibility. But if the potential buyer is searching for cracks, I'd say the chances of him buying are very low. Maybe offer a heavy discount, or a non-commercial license.

gkya 8y ago

You release fman on Linux, so you use at least some open source libraries. I wonder which ones are those and what is your policy of transferring a share of your earnings from your project to them. Also I suggest anybody using this software with a paid subscription to evaluate this bit from the EULA: > fman is provided as-is. You are using it at your sole risk. We give no warranty of any kind. You agree that we shall not be liable for any damages related to fman. Source: https://fman.io/eula https://fman.io/eula Also, stop this FUD already. Anybody can release software however they want, free, libre or not, but this attitude that I quote from your link is plain wrong. > We all like free stuff. But in a world where everything is free, we are the product. We're talking about FOSS software here, not about Facebook or Google. If you don't want people "bashing a little guy who's trying to innovate", you can quit spreading misinformation about people whose gratutiuous libraries and kernels you use (yes every platform you release to uses FOSS somewhere).