5 ms·

An integrated payment solution is going to attract a far greater numbers of sponsors than telling everyone to go to sign up for a subscription on external sites

by mythz 7y ago

An integrated payment solution is going to attract a far greater numbers of sponsors than telling everyone to go to sign up for a subscription on external sites. Integrated authentication, existing credit cards on file, unified billing, giving more visibility to sponsors, allow projects to effectively monetize high traffic project pages with ad-space for sponsors and potential benefits like priority support is going to have a far larger impact for incentivizing funding and sponsorship than linking to a number of different external sites off to the side. I'm sure this is a welcome and long awaited feature for many devs who would love more funding around their OSS efforts.

diggan 7y ago
> An integrated payment solution is going to attract a far greater numbers of sponsors than telling everyone to go to sign up for a subscription on external sites. I agree, and I'm not saying GitHub should have just added a redirect to OpenCollective and called it a day. But they did have the choice to integrate OpenCollective. Basically, the same UI they have now, they could have built on top of OpenCollective, without any losses of features. But, they would have lost a lot of data and other interesting things that can help GitHub/Microsoft develop other features in other services. And I'm sure it was a conversation on the product team (or whoever came up with it), but eventually got dropped for for some reason.
- mythz 7y ago
  Why would they limit themselves to the features of integrating multiple external sites when they can build the features, integration, velocity and product direction they want without being beholden to external stake holders with different values and motivations. GitHub's effectively the home of OSS development, with great UX and design aesthetics, they definitely don't need to delegate for help in building out their own product. The only stake holders who would benefit by redirecting to external sites, are the external providers themselves as it would end up with a worse UX and fragmented and limited experience, which is exactly what you don't when wanting to attract sponsorship, it should be as easy, seamless and integrated as possible.
  - diggan 7y ago
    Microsoft have two choices with the direction of GitHub: Use it as a loss-leader to get developer mindshare and get more people to use what they actually get a profit from, Azure and others. Or, they can use GitHub to build a open platform for the entire ecosystem. What of these two options are the best for users of the platform? I'm sure one option is better for the shareholders of Microsoft/GitHub, but I'm more interested in the value for the users, many who are open source developers. Of course, they don't have to collaborate with the rest of the ecosystem. But if they were truly interested in making the open source ecosystem better, without any compromises, they would have built something different than what was launched today. > The only stake holders who would benefit by redirecting to external sites, are the external providers themselves Sure, if you think of it as OpenCollective vs GitHub. But in the end, open source developers are the ones who should be benefiting from whatever choice they make (that's my naive hope at least). And the choice they made was to improve short-term mindshare, in front of long-term open source sustainability. For me, GitHub have become an essential open source infrastructure project. But, the platform itself is nowhere near open, and every new feature they seem to be launching, is closed-source and _aims_ to fracture the existing ecosystems the feature touches.
    - mythz 7y ago
      > Use it as a loss-leader to get developer mindshare Right, that's why they paid 7.5B to acquire GitHub and are further investing in it to be more appealing to developers and gain even more mind share. > Or, they can use GitHub to build a open platform for the entire ecosystem. Is that code for not shipping developer focused features they've released since acquiring GitHub? Most of the features like free private repos and package repositories have been well received. > What of these two options are the best for users of the platform? For users, definitely all the features they're taking advantage of now that didn't exist before. > Sure, if you think of it as OpenCollective vs GitHub. I'm purely viewing it from the developer's perspective on what would attract more funding/sponsorship, which is by far the more convenient and integrated solution for all reasons already mentioned in my previous comments above. I view this as a massive potential that could spur on a whole new wave of sustainable OSS development similar to what YouTube/Twitch are doing for content creators. This was never a consideration of GitHub before but with this announcement it's now become a strategic focus which I hope will be continually improved on over time.
alias_neo 7y ago
Perhaps this is all a ploy to encourage us to get our credit cards on file with Github? They don't have my card details, and I don't intend to change that. I'll look for other means to donate to the open source projects I want to support, but it does not involve giving Microsoft Github my bank account details.
- briandear 7y ago
  Does Github and Microsoft have a habit of stealing money from people? I’d be more worried about giving my info to some random open source “collective” group that has considerably less experience with compliance and security.
  - alias_neo 7y ago
    The down votes you have should indicate the general opinion here, but; Microsoft's takeover of GitHub is generally considered in the open source community as a negative. After all, Microsoft's behaviour indicates a generally opposing ideology. With regards privacy, Microsoft is up there with the worst of them (a la Facebook) with their telemetry, at the very least. Beyond that, Microsoft has a ( perhaps rightly so) capitalist agenda which doesn't fit with open source. In case you missed the mass exodus from GitHub on the announcement of their takeover, those that value the freedoms of Libre generally are not in favour of a Microsoft GitHub. Giving GitHub your bank details can be reasonably synonymised with giving Microsoft your bank details and giving them a cut of the money you intended to give to a developer. At this point, all the additions to GitHub that Microsoft are making, demonstrate how disconnected they are from that community. Alternatives such as open collective are quite well regarded in this community and their ideology aligns like Microsoft's never will. Worse comes to worse, you can ask a developer for a PayPal, Bitcoin or plain old bank details and just send money straight you them. I'm not saying there are not those for whom this will be of value, but GitHub as-was is no more and ideally if some neutral party willing to host an open source, libre alternative were to show themselves, or would be more desirable than a Microsoft GitHub, for this community. To present my anecdotal example; I don't run Windows, I don't have an Xbox, I don't have my bank details in GitHub; Microsoft is up in the top-list of companies that don't (willingly) get my bank details.

by mythz 7y ago

diggan 7y ago

> An integrated payment solution is going to attract a far greater numbers of sponsors than telling everyone to go to sign up for a subscription on external sites. I agree, and I'm not saying GitHub should have just added a redirect to OpenCollective and called it a day. But they did have the choice to integrate OpenCollective. Basically, the same UI they have now, they could have built on top of OpenCollective, without any losses of features. But, they would have lost a lot of data and other interesting things that can help GitHub/Microsoft develop other features in other services. And I'm sure it was a conversation on the product team (or whoever came up with it), but eventually got dropped for for some reason.

mythz 7y ago
Why would they limit themselves to the features of integrating multiple external sites when they can build the features, integration, velocity and product direction they want without being beholden to external stake holders with different values and motivations. GitHub's effectively the home of OSS development, with great UX and design aesthetics, they definitely don't need to delegate for help in building out their own product. The only stake holders who would benefit by redirecting to external sites, are the external providers themselves as it would end up with a worse UX and fragmented and limited experience, which is exactly what you don't when wanting to attract sponsorship, it should be as easy, seamless and integrated as possible.
- diggan 7y ago
  Microsoft have two choices with the direction of GitHub: Use it as a loss-leader to get developer mindshare and get more people to use what they actually get a profit from, Azure and others. Or, they can use GitHub to build a open platform for the entire ecosystem. What of these two options are the best for users of the platform? I'm sure one option is better for the shareholders of Microsoft/GitHub, but I'm more interested in the value for the users, many who are open source developers. Of course, they don't have to collaborate with the rest of the ecosystem. But if they were truly interested in making the open source ecosystem better, without any compromises, they would have built something different than what was launched today. > The only stake holders who would benefit by redirecting to external sites, are the external providers themselves Sure, if you think of it as OpenCollective vs GitHub. But in the end, open source developers are the ones who should be benefiting from whatever choice they make (that's my naive hope at least). And the choice they made was to improve short-term mindshare, in front of long-term open source sustainability. For me, GitHub have become an essential open source infrastructure project. But, the platform itself is nowhere near open, and every new feature they seem to be launching, is closed-source and _aims_ to fracture the existing ecosystems the feature touches.
  - mythz 7y ago
    > Use it as a loss-leader to get developer mindshare Right, that's why they paid 7.5B to acquire GitHub and are further investing in it to be more appealing to developers and gain even more mind share. > Or, they can use GitHub to build a open platform for the entire ecosystem. Is that code for not shipping developer focused features they've released since acquiring GitHub? Most of the features like free private repos and package repositories have been well received. > What of these two options are the best for users of the platform? For users, definitely all the features they're taking advantage of now that didn't exist before. > Sure, if you think of it as OpenCollective vs GitHub. I'm purely viewing it from the developer's perspective on what would attract more funding/sponsorship, which is by far the more convenient and integrated solution for all reasons already mentioned in my previous comments above. I view this as a massive potential that could spur on a whole new wave of sustainable OSS development similar to what YouTube/Twitch are doing for content creators. This was never a consideration of GitHub before but with this announcement it's now become a strategic focus which I hope will be continually improved on over time.

alias_neo 7y ago

Perhaps this is all a ploy to encourage us to get our credit cards on file with Github? They don't have my card details, and I don't intend to change that. I'll look for other means to donate to the open source projects I want to support, but it does not involve giving Microsoft Github my bank account details.

briandear 7y ago
Does Github and Microsoft have a habit of stealing money from people? I’d be more worried about giving my info to some random open source “collective” group that has considerably less experience with compliance and security.
- alias_neo 7y ago
  The down votes you have should indicate the general opinion here, but; Microsoft's takeover of GitHub is generally considered in the open source community as a negative. After all, Microsoft's behaviour indicates a generally opposing ideology. With regards privacy, Microsoft is up there with the worst of them (a la Facebook) with their telemetry, at the very least. Beyond that, Microsoft has a ( perhaps rightly so) capitalist agenda which doesn't fit with open source. In case you missed the mass exodus from GitHub on the announcement of their takeover, those that value the freedoms of Libre generally are not in favour of a Microsoft GitHub. Giving GitHub your bank details can be reasonably synonymised with giving Microsoft your bank details and giving them a cut of the money you intended to give to a developer. At this point, all the additions to GitHub that Microsoft are making, demonstrate how disconnected they are from that community. Alternatives such as open collective are quite well regarded in this community and their ideology aligns like Microsoft's never will. Worse comes to worse, you can ask a developer for a PayPal, Bitcoin or plain old bank details and just send money straight you them. I'm not saying there are not those for whom this will be of value, but GitHub as-was is no more and ideally if some neutral party willing to host an open source, libre alternative were to show themselves, or would be more desirable than a Microsoft GitHub, for this community. To present my anecdotal example; I don't run Windows, I don't have an Xbox, I don't have my bank details in GitHub; Microsoft is up in the top-list of companies that don't (willingly) get my bank details.