4 ms·

> Charging people to use your solution after it's been developed is the stupid thing to do, IMO I think this is the core of what I disagree with in your post.

> Charging people to use your solution after it's been developed is the stupid thing to do, IMO I think this is the core of what I disagree with in your post. Imagine 3 scenarios: 1) I have a problem that I'd like solved and I go searching for a solution. After a while, I come across a reddit post where someone says "oh, you're trying to reticulate splines? You should buy ReticulatorPro for $50. I use it and its great!" I see that someone built it 3 years ago and I go and download the 1 month free trial, I'm happy with it and in 1 month, $50 comes out of my bank account. 2) I have a problem that I'd like solved and I go searching for a solution. After a while, I come across a reddit post where someone says "oh, you're trying to reticulate splines? Someone is trying to fundraise to build it and they seem pretty serious." I see that they've been trying for 6 months and they are 70% of the way toward their goal. So I pitch in $50, but then I'm waiting as the uncertainty of fundraising and software schedules takes its toll. 18 months later the solution is released. I am less happy. 3) I have a problem that I'd like solved and I go searching for a solution. After a while, I come across a reddit post where someone says "oh, you're trying to reticulate splines? Someone is trying to fundraise to build that." I see that someone built it 1 year ago and I go and download it for free and I am happy. In the current world, all of these are possible. In the world you propose, option #1 is impossible. I argue that a world with Option #1 available is a better world for everyone. Why? Because in the world of option #2/#3, the only time period during which the developer can raise money is before the product has been created. That means only products with sufficiently good pre-development marketing can be successful. (note: "Get 10,000 fans who love you" isn't "easy" but at least moderately difficult.) In the world of #1, someone who isn't good at pre-development marketing but is good at building a product and using the quality of the product to do post-development marketing can succeed. I want a world where someone can build a good product and get funding mostly on the strength of their product. > teach people Is a valuable but different skill from building products.

carapace 8y ago
> In the world you propose, option #1 is impossible. You can still send $50 to the creator of ReticulatorPro? But that's not quite your point, is it? You're saying that I, as a developer, should be able to work on a product that doesn't have enough qualified demand (pre-sales or crowd-funds) upfront to pay for its development costs, and expect to cover my gamble by requiring customers to give me money before allowing them to use it after I've already written it? Is that right?
- afarrell 8y ago
  Correct.
  - carapace 8y ago
    Okay, cool. Meaning no disrespect, what I'm saying is, I think that's dumb. Not the first part, that's a problem I face personally: I'm a developer working on a product that doesn't have any qualified demand upfront. (Heaven help me, it's a programming language!) I'm really hoping the Zig creator's plan works out because that would be my ideal life (modulus living in NY. Wonderful city, but I like forest.) The second part: attempting to limit copying of a digital artifact after it's been written is really hard and I think that setting up your business strategy to rely on it is pragmatically and strategically foolish. That's not to say it can't be done. More like, imagine an alternate universe where Microsoft open-sources DOS and Windows from the very start and Bill Gates has only $100M net worth... As an aside, in re: getting those 10,000 fans. I've found that a lot of people are lacking one or two skills that would really help them succeed, and if they can connect with other people who have those skills then together they can really take off. If growing a fanbase feels daunting to you, that's okay, you can get a consultant, coach or co-founder that can do it. Kevin Smith found Jason Mewes whose performance in "Clerks" catalyzed both their careers. Anyhow, for my own project, I am going to try "Tupperware parties" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupperware#Tupperware_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupperware#Tupperware_parties Finally, working on projects you love and believe in is great and I don't knock it, I'm doing it myself, but if you're starting a business to make money you really should pre-qualify your idea, and doing that by pre-selling and/or crowd-funding gives you pretty $$$olid feedback that there's real demand for your product.

carapace 8y ago

> In the world you propose, option #1 is impossible. You can still send $50 to the creator of ReticulatorPro? But that's not quite your point, is it? You're saying that I, as a developer, should be able to work on a product that doesn't have enough qualified demand (pre-sales or crowd-funds) upfront to pay for its development costs, and expect to cover my gamble by requiring customers to give me money before allowing them to use it after I've already written it? Is that right?

afarrell 8y ago
Correct.
- carapace 8y ago
  Okay, cool. Meaning no disrespect, what I'm saying is, I think that's dumb. Not the first part, that's a problem I face personally: I'm a developer working on a product that doesn't have any qualified demand upfront. (Heaven help me, it's a programming language!) I'm really hoping the Zig creator's plan works out because that would be my ideal life (modulus living in NY. Wonderful city, but I like forest.) The second part: attempting to limit copying of a digital artifact after it's been written is really hard and I think that setting up your business strategy to rely on it is pragmatically and strategically foolish. That's not to say it can't be done. More like, imagine an alternate universe where Microsoft open-sources DOS and Windows from the very start and Bill Gates has only $100M net worth... As an aside, in re: getting those 10,000 fans. I've found that a lot of people are lacking one or two skills that would really help them succeed, and if they can connect with other people who have those skills then together they can really take off. If growing a fanbase feels daunting to you, that's okay, you can get a consultant, coach or co-founder that can do it. Kevin Smith found Jason Mewes whose performance in "Clerks" catalyzed both their careers. Anyhow, for my own project, I am going to try "Tupperware parties" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupperware#Tupperware_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupperware#Tupperware_parties Finally, working on projects you love and believe in is great and I don't knock it, I'm doing it myself, but if you're starting a business to make money you really should pre-qualify your idea, and doing that by pre-selling and/or crowd-funding gives you pretty $$$olid feedback that there's real demand for your product.