8 ms·

Not that you asked my opinion, but $23/year for screendimming software--its no wonder people crack this. The only realistic scenario that I'd pay that is if my

Not that you asked my opinion, but $23/year for screendimming software--its no wonder people crack this. The only realistic scenario that I'd pay that is if my employer was fronting the cost. Then again, maybe for some people it really is delivering that much value. Lunar lite and rcmd seem priced fairly. If it makes you feel any better (probably not), the people pirating your software probably wouldn't have paid for it anyhow. Or if they did pay for it, would pay for it with things like stolen app store giftcards. In another life, I was quite money-limited, and so I downloaded basically every game, movie, song, and app. I didn't feel badly about it either. I was never going to buy the media. I couldn't. Once I got old enough and had enough disposable income to not have to pirate things, I stopped. But quashing my piracy would have never equated in more sales. Anyone who sees a pirate download and assume that's a lost sale is deluded--its not happening. I think the best methods are trying to get people to pay (who haven't already) are probably guilt or a productive-spirited suggestion. If you can detect that someone is cracking your software or doesn't have a valid license, put a donation link in the shape of a coffee cup in the corner of your software. At least people have the option to support you. Otherwise--you'll never best the crackers.

alin23 5y ago
It’s not screen dimming. It is an app to fully control the monitor without using its physical buttons. Lunar can change the hardware brightness, the same one that you can change using the monitor OSD. That in itself required a lot of reverse engineering and research about the DDC protocol. Adaptive brightness, ambient light sensor integration and other automatic features also needed months of non-stop work. Plus, the app is open source, trying to give something back to the community which gave me the inspiration to create this: https://github.com/alin23/Lunar https://github.com/alin23/Lunar Even with $23 per license, after taxes I barely make half of what I made at my previous job where I worked less hours. I don’t understand how you can dismiss this so simply. the people pirating your software probably wouldn't have paid for it anyhow I heard this argument so many times.. it's like saying to someone who just got their bike stolen while they were trying to sell it | the thief would have probably never bought it If you don't need the Pro features, don't pay for them and don't use them. Simple as that. Why does it feel okay to steal them in the software world, but it's clearly a crime in the real world?
- axg11 5y ago
  You're describing the complexity of achieving the outcome. That is a great achievement - you spent months of work to achieve something technically complex. Congratulations, sincerely. However, to the end user, Lunar is a utility that controls screen brightness. I too am not surprised that many people are reluctant to pay a yearly subscription to control the brightness of their display.
  - alin23 5y ago
    The screen brightness changing is free forever. The license is unlimited (not yearly subscription) and only for the Pro features (automatic adaptive brightness, sensor integration etc.)
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    It doesn't matter. He created it and can price it at $1,000 if he wants. The point is nobody should expect him to continue working for free after people crack the software. Thus, cracking hurts indie devs and innovation because there's less recoupable reward for such work.
- jpalawaga 5y ago
  That's actually really cool. Kudos to you. Unfortunately, as cool as it is, I don't think it really changes much. I took a quick scan of your website, determined it was expensive screen-dimming software. Others are likely to do the same. I have no doubt that this took an extraordinary amount of time to get right. You also did a beautiful job with the app and the website. I've tried to put something together that's a fraction of the complexity, and, well--it's just a lot of work. You should be proud of what you built. That being said, all of what I said still stands: even though it allows you to control the hardware through software, it's still an expensive piece of software, and it's sort of niche. Having to rebuy the software every year for updates is also sort of a piss-off, even though I know you're doing lots of testing for each OS update and possibly hardware revisions too.
  - alin23 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
degif 5y ago
The statement "Not that you asked my opinion, but $23/year for screendimming software--its no wonder people crack this." does not make any sense. If this is an application that only dimms the screen (which you can do multiple ways without any application) why would anyone make an effort of creating and distributing it and why would anyone make an effort on searching for a cracked version of given application? Surely there is some added value to it. Also "if you can detect that someone is cracking your software or doesn't have a valid license, put a donation link in the shape of a coffee cup in the corner of your software. At least people have the option to support you." I have no data to back this up, but I really doubt that the people that are money-limited or just don't want to pay 20$ for an application will suddenly support a developer voluntarily.
- alin23 5y ago
  I couldn't have said it better myself :) In the first 4 years, Lunar was actually completely free and supported by donations on BuyMeACoffee. I made a total of $5k in those 4 years from donations, probably even less after PayPal took their huge cut.
- MAGZine 5y ago
  ah, see, you've applied logic where there is none. Am I really going to open a philosophical debate with myself when I visit a product's webpage? I scrolled through, I saw different scheduling types, some other features. But as a whole, the software's purpose is "make screen brighter or dimmer" and that's something I just don't have big use for. And on your second point. I also don't have data. But if people crck software that costs $23, maybe they're willing to pay some fraction that isn't $23. Isn't that reasonable? Or in your mind, are there two groups of people: one that will pay anything, and the other that will pay nothing?
aaronbrethorst 5y ago
Not that you asked my opinion, but $1,300 for iPhone--its no wonder people steal this. The only realistic scenario that I'd pay that is if my employer was fronting the cost. Then again, maybe for some people it really is delivering that much value. https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/12/19/crime-blotter-roof-based-best-buy-robbery-knife-gang-iphone-theft-more https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/12/19/crime-blotter-roo...
- MAGZine 5y ago
  I categorically disagree with this false equivalence. Copyright infringement and theft are not the same--no matter how much knowledge workers would have you believe otherwise. Actually, I find it a little ironic that you backed up your statement using someone else's intellectual property.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    What about products whose marginal cost is close to, but not zero? Is it okay to steal them?
munificent 5y ago
You say: > I think the best methods are trying to get people to pay (who haven't already) are probably guilt or a productive-spirited suggestion. And you also say: > I didn't feel badly about it either. Those don't seem consistent. The reality is that cracking and using cracked software is ethically and immorally wrong. People do it because they're selfish and can get away with it.
- MAGZine 5y ago
  You make it sound like people who pirate software are trying to hurt creators. They're not. The means to acquire the software are just too great. If you give people a way to express their gratitude in other ways--they might (they also might not. heck they probably won't. but I'd also expect it to be non-zero).
  - munificent 5y ago
    > You make it sound like people who pirate software are trying to hurt creators. No, I am absolutely not claiming any intention malice. I'm claiming selfishness. > The means to acquire the software are just too great. It doesn't matter. If you didn't make X, and the person who did make X doesn't give you any right to X... you don't have any right to X. They made it. By virtue of actually creating the thing, they morally have all of the rights to decide who should have access to it. If they haven't given you access to it, what right do you have to claim over it?
BonoboIO 5y ago
I‘m a developer myself and i have the money, that is not the problem. I have no mac myself, so not a use case for me, but and don‘t get this wrong ... Design of the app is good, website is 10/10 ... but a subscription for a monitor control app is a hard sell. One time i would say:“well, why not. i use it and there is no better way“ but my lizard brain says:“23$ or euro every year for like 5 or 10 years ... thats money. Nope. One time developing it and a few minor fixes ... “ I have no idea how bad every mac os update f+++s with your app and maybe its a pain, but well lizard brain
- alin23 5y ago
  Thanks for the explanation! But the thing is, it's not a subscription. If Lunar keeps working for you, you can avoid updating after the free period of updates ends. No need to pay again. If you don't upgrade your Mac hardware to something exotic (like the M1 upgrade), and if macOS doesn't pull the rug from under us, devs that play with the DDC protocol, then you won't need any updates. But Lunar is very dependent on the hardware, because it talks low-level I²C with the monitor controller. So if you upgrade, and I have to spend thousands of dollars on new hardware and months on reverse engineering it, I expect to be paid for it. You pay for the product as is now, not for my unlimited future time.
lebed2045 5y ago
+1 to this. I really hate when small/non-essential software had not just high cost but freaking subscription. Not speaking about OP but https://www.noisli.com/ https://www.noisli.com/ for example that was useful, no question, but now asking $120 to listen white-noise that I can download for free? I'm okay to pay $20 for offline app and sent $100 to charity. I'm also sure they would have times more profit from this. Instead of this, pay fix price for software and 1 year of updates seems time more fair.

alin23 5y ago

It’s not screen dimming. It is an app to fully control the monitor without using its physical buttons. Lunar can change the hardware brightness, the same one that you can change using the monitor OSD. That in itself required a lot of reverse engineering and research about the DDC protocol. Adaptive brightness, ambient light sensor integration and other automatic features also needed months of non-stop work. Plus, the app is open source, trying to give something back to the community which gave me the inspiration to create this: https://github.com/alin23/Lunar https://github.com/alin23/Lunar Even with $23 per license, after taxes I barely make half of what I made at my previous job where I worked less hours. I don’t understand how you can dismiss this so simply. the people pirating your software probably wouldn't have paid for it anyhow I heard this argument so many times.. it's like saying to someone who just got their bike stolen while they were trying to sell it | the thief would have probably never bought it If you don't need the Pro features, don't pay for them and don't use them. Simple as that. Why does it feel okay to steal them in the software world, but it's clearly a crime in the real world?

axg11 5y ago
You're describing the complexity of achieving the outcome. That is a great achievement - you spent months of work to achieve something technically complex. Congratulations, sincerely. However, to the end user, Lunar is a utility that controls screen brightness. I too am not surprised that many people are reluctant to pay a yearly subscription to control the brightness of their display.
- alin23 5y ago
  The screen brightness changing is free forever. The license is unlimited (not yearly subscription) and only for the Pro features (automatic adaptive brightness, sensor integration etc.)
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  It doesn't matter. He created it and can price it at $1,000 if he wants. The point is nobody should expect him to continue working for free after people crack the software. Thus, cracking hurts indie devs and innovation because there's less recoupable reward for such work.
jpalawaga 5y ago
That's actually really cool. Kudos to you. Unfortunately, as cool as it is, I don't think it really changes much. I took a quick scan of your website, determined it was expensive screen-dimming software. Others are likely to do the same. I have no doubt that this took an extraordinary amount of time to get right. You also did a beautiful job with the app and the website. I've tried to put something together that's a fraction of the complexity, and, well--it's just a lot of work. You should be proud of what you built. That being said, all of what I said still stands: even though it allows you to control the hardware through software, it's still an expensive piece of software, and it's sort of niche. Having to rebuy the software every year for updates is also sort of a piss-off, even though I know you're doing lots of testing for each OS update and possibly hardware revisions too.
- alin23 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

degif 5y ago

The statement "Not that you asked my opinion, but $23/year for screendimming software--its no wonder people crack this." does not make any sense. If this is an application that only dimms the screen (which you can do multiple ways without any application) why would anyone make an effort of creating and distributing it and why would anyone make an effort on searching for a cracked version of given application? Surely there is some added value to it. Also "if you can detect that someone is cracking your software or doesn't have a valid license, put a donation link in the shape of a coffee cup in the corner of your software. At least people have the option to support you." I have no data to back this up, but I really doubt that the people that are money-limited or just don't want to pay 20$ for an application will suddenly support a developer voluntarily.

alin23 5y ago
I couldn't have said it better myself :) In the first 4 years, Lunar was actually completely free and supported by donations on BuyMeACoffee. I made a total of $5k in those 4 years from donations, probably even less after PayPal took their huge cut.
MAGZine 5y ago
ah, see, you've applied logic where there is none. Am I really going to open a philosophical debate with myself when I visit a product's webpage? I scrolled through, I saw different scheduling types, some other features. But as a whole, the software's purpose is "make screen brighter or dimmer" and that's something I just don't have big use for. And on your second point. I also don't have data. But if people crck software that costs $23, maybe they're willing to pay some fraction that isn't $23. Isn't that reasonable? Or in your mind, are there two groups of people: one that will pay anything, and the other that will pay nothing?

aaronbrethorst 5y ago

Not that you asked my opinion, but $1,300 for iPhone--its no wonder people steal this. The only realistic scenario that I'd pay that is if my employer was fronting the cost. Then again, maybe for some people it really is delivering that much value. https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/12/19/crime-blotter-roof-based-best-buy-robbery-knife-gang-iphone-theft-more https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/12/19/crime-blotter-roo...

MAGZine 5y ago
I categorically disagree with this false equivalence. Copyright infringement and theft are not the same--no matter how much knowledge workers would have you believe otherwise. Actually, I find it a little ironic that you backed up your statement using someone else's intellectual property.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  What about products whose marginal cost is close to, but not zero? Is it okay to steal them?

munificent 5y ago

You say: > I think the best methods are trying to get people to pay (who haven't already) are probably guilt or a productive-spirited suggestion. And you also say: > I didn't feel badly about it either. Those don't seem consistent. The reality is that cracking and using cracked software is ethically and immorally wrong. People do it because they're selfish and can get away with it.

MAGZine 5y ago
You make it sound like people who pirate software are trying to hurt creators. They're not. The means to acquire the software are just too great. If you give people a way to express their gratitude in other ways--they might (they also might not. heck they probably won't. but I'd also expect it to be non-zero).
- munificent 5y ago
  > You make it sound like people who pirate software are trying to hurt creators. No, I am absolutely not claiming any intention malice. I'm claiming selfishness. > The means to acquire the software are just too great. It doesn't matter. If you didn't make X, and the person who did make X doesn't give you any right to X... you don't have any right to X. They made it. By virtue of actually creating the thing, they morally have all of the rights to decide who should have access to it. If they haven't given you access to it, what right do you have to claim over it?

BonoboIO 5y ago

I‘m a developer myself and i have the money, that is not the problem. I have no mac myself, so not a use case for me, but and don‘t get this wrong ... Design of the app is good, website is 10/10 ... but a subscription for a monitor control app is a hard sell. One time i would say:“well, why not. i use it and there is no better way“ but my lizard brain says:“23$ or euro every year for like 5 or 10 years ... thats money. Nope. One time developing it and a few minor fixes ... “ I have no idea how bad every mac os update f+++s with your app and maybe its a pain, but well lizard brain

alin23 5y ago
Thanks for the explanation! But the thing is, it's not a subscription. If Lunar keeps working for you, you can avoid updating after the free period of updates ends. No need to pay again. If you don't upgrade your Mac hardware to something exotic (like the M1 upgrade), and if macOS doesn't pull the rug from under us, devs that play with the DDC protocol, then you won't need any updates. But Lunar is very dependent on the hardware, because it talks low-level I²C with the monitor controller. So if you upgrade, and I have to spend thousands of dollars on new hardware and months on reverse engineering it, I expect to be paid for it. You pay for the product as is now, not for my unlimited future time.

lebed2045 5y ago

+1 to this. I really hate when small/non-essential software had not just high cost but freaking subscription. Not speaking about OP but https://www.noisli.com/ https://www.noisli.com/ for example that was useful, no question, but now asking $120 to listen white-noise that I can download for free? I'm okay to pay $20 for offline app and sent $100 to charity. I'm also sure they would have times more profit from this. Instead of this, pay fix price for software and 1 year of updates seems time more fair.