3 ms·
Great post, I completely agree! I have debated over this for years while building a self-hosted analytics platform (userTrack.net) and I have always reached th
by XCSme 6y ago
Great post, I completely agree!
I have debated over this for years while building a self-hosted analytics platform (userTrack.net) and I have always reached the same conclusions: if I open-source it, not only I affect its sustainability but also the business goals would become complete opposite to the product goals (eg. as you mentioned, making it easier to install improves product but affects the business).
I now think that the best way to go is "paid-source": make the product as good as you can, make it as easy to install as possible and the customers who want to use it can pay a reasonable amount for it. I recently changed the pricing model, as the one-time payment was not sustainable, so the product has now an upfront cost + optional yearly maintenance fee (you can use it forever, but if you want new features and support you should support it).
I have used many amazing open-source projects that got abandoned over the years, I would have gladly paid for many of them if that meant sustaining the future development of the project. And, before anyone mentions it, donations are not the answer.
(I left the same comment on the article)
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago> I now think that the best way to go is "paid-source" Is that just source-available software[0] (sometimes also called shared-source)? I ask not because I object, but because it's easier if we all use the same words for the same things. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
- XCSme 6y agoThanks for letting me know, yes it's the same thing. Source-available sounds accurate, the term is a bit long though and I think it is a more generic term that also covers open-source and paid-source?
- apple4ever 6y agoI think the pricing you mentioned is also part of the issue. Companies that are open source but paid something have a crazy high price for that something. I know they are going after the Enterprise market but they still price themselves out.
- XCSme 6y agoI also found out the same thing, but it's mostly related to paid software in general. It's a lot easier to sell expensive software. The lower your set the price the more "cheap" customers you will have, which results in more support tickets, maintenance, marketing needed, etc. The customers who want lower prices are also those who would be more critical of your product, as the price they paid for it means more to them compared to someone who doesn't mind spending $50/mo for a basic service. I am still trying to find a way to accommodate for both enterprise customers and low-budget customers. I tried doing this using some simple licensing terms (eg. get this if you are a solo dev, get this if you are large business), but people will just buy the cheapest option that has the features they want. This makes it hard to offer the same features at different prices and might lead to either downgrading the basic product or adding some buzzword features for the enterprise product.