3 ms·

Do coders get paid every time their code fires? No? Oh then musicians and artists can join the rest of society in not getting paid per usage of an item. Creativ

Do coders get paid every time their code fires? No? Oh then musicians and artists can join the rest of society in not getting paid per usage of an item. Creatives just get greedier and greedier. No other industry gets paid the way that they do, not teaching, not labor, not babysitting, not management, not politics, none. If you want to get paid, perform or provide an object to purchase.

voltagex_ 8y ago
A vanishingly small percentage of artists make a living from art. An even smaller percentage of artists get rich. A bit like not every developer is making $120k+...
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yes. This is the key point. And various commenters have made it here, in one way or another. Also, as others have argued, only a vanishingly small percentage of musicians have ever made a living from their art. Even during the peak of the 40s-80s boom in recorded music. At least, if you include everyone that others have cared to listen to. That is, you only made it if you signed with a record label that didn't screw you. And through graft or luck, hit the charts. Those are some serious filters. Indeed, one could argue that direct marketing via the Internet has allowed more artists to earn at least some income from their music. If in no other way than getting paid for performances. It's just that the chances of making it big are lower.
Swizec 8y ago
> Do coders get paid every time their code fires? That's what the SaaS model was invented for and why you increasingly can't use software without a subscription anymore.
- mirimir 8y ago
  I would never use SaaS. Or at least, I'd never base a business on using it. Because you have no recourse if the price increases dramatically (e.g., Google map API) or the API goes away (not at all uncommon).
  - Swizec 8y ago
    That's like those people who disable JavaScript in their browser. Yes you can get through life without using SaaS and you will likely be fine. But you can also join the 21st century and get on with your life. I like that I can pay for software based on how much I use it rather than ponying up hundreds of thousands of dollars once. A lot of the cheaper end SaaS-es could never ever be sustainable without the monthly subscription business model. Particularly because they themselves use SaaS and have to keep the lights on. Imagine if isntead of paying a monthly fee to use whatever services companies use to run their company they'd be required to build everything in house? Ain't nobody got the funds for that.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yes, I get that. And maybe it works out OK, most of the time. But I've surely seen lots of horror stories on HN. Also, building in-house isn't that expensive. Or at least, not compared to developing in-house. I'm not all that technical, and I setup my own Docker registry, for example. I am one of those people who only allow minimal required JavaScript :)
      - Swizec 8y ago
        I think it’s about opportunity cost. It’s often cheaper to outsource everything not-core and focus your time and attention on the things only you can do. Where “you” is whatever you consider the relevant company/team/businessunit. Can I build a website? Yes. Can I save money by paying someone to build a website and focus instead on filling it with great content? You bet. Same applies for SaaS. It would be a waste of time/money/effort to build my own ConvertKit for example
        mirimir 8y ago
        There's a huge difference between outsourcing and SaaS. Sure, it's cheaper to pay someone to build your website. That's outsourcing. But then you run it on a server that you lease. If it's running on something managed by a third party, it can just disappear. And that's SaaS. There's also the issue of sharing sensitive data with SaaS providers. Just think of all the data leaks that's caused. The Squarespace heatmap stuff we just saw. The deals between Google and phone manufacturers. The behavioral-ad-delivery morass. Re ConvertKit, the alternative would look like "git clone foo".

voltagex_ 8y ago

A vanishingly small percentage of artists make a living from art. An even smaller percentage of artists get rich. A bit like not every developer is making $120k+...

mirimir 8y ago
Yes. This is the key point. And various commenters have made it here, in one way or another. Also, as others have argued, only a vanishingly small percentage of musicians have ever made a living from their art. Even during the peak of the 40s-80s boom in recorded music. At least, if you include everyone that others have cared to listen to. That is, you only made it if you signed with a record label that didn't screw you. And through graft or luck, hit the charts. Those are some serious filters. Indeed, one could argue that direct marketing via the Internet has allowed more artists to earn at least some income from their music. If in no other way than getting paid for performances. It's just that the chances of making it big are lower.

Swizec 8y ago

> Do coders get paid every time their code fires? That's what the SaaS model was invented for and why you increasingly can't use software without a subscription anymore.

mirimir 8y ago
I would never use SaaS. Or at least, I'd never base a business on using it. Because you have no recourse if the price increases dramatically (e.g., Google map API) or the API goes away (not at all uncommon).
- Swizec 8y ago
  That's like those people who disable JavaScript in their browser. Yes you can get through life without using SaaS and you will likely be fine. But you can also join the 21st century and get on with your life. I like that I can pay for software based on how much I use it rather than ponying up hundreds of thousands of dollars once. A lot of the cheaper end SaaS-es could never ever be sustainable without the monthly subscription business model. Particularly because they themselves use SaaS and have to keep the lights on. Imagine if isntead of paying a monthly fee to use whatever services companies use to run their company they'd be required to build everything in house? Ain't nobody got the funds for that.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Yes, I get that. And maybe it works out OK, most of the time. But I've surely seen lots of horror stories on HN. Also, building in-house isn't that expensive. Or at least, not compared to developing in-house. I'm not all that technical, and I setup my own Docker registry, for example. I am one of those people who only allow minimal required JavaScript :)
    - Swizec 8y ago
      I think it’s about opportunity cost. It’s often cheaper to outsource everything not-core and focus your time and attention on the things only you can do. Where “you” is whatever you consider the relevant company/team/businessunit. Can I build a website? Yes. Can I save money by paying someone to build a website and focus instead on filling it with great content? You bet. Same applies for SaaS. It would be a waste of time/money/effort to build my own ConvertKit for example
      - mirimir 8y ago
        There's a huge difference between outsourcing and SaaS. Sure, it's cheaper to pay someone to build your website. That's outsourcing. But then you run it on a server that you lease. If it's running on something managed by a third party, it can just disappear. And that's SaaS. There's also the issue of sharing sensitive data with SaaS providers. Just think of all the data leaks that's caused. The Squarespace heatmap stuff we just saw. The deals between Google and phone manufacturers. The behavioral-ad-delivery morass. Re ConvertKit, the alternative would look like "git clone foo".