3 ms·

This is why we take pains to be transparent about things like finances: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-04-08-2021-financial-report/ https://sourcehut.org/blog

This is why we take pains to be transparent about things like finances: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-04-08-2021-financial-report/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-04-08-2021-financial-report/ SourceHut is profitable and sustainable, thanks in no small part to the fact that we expect users to pay if they have the means. Small companies providing free services with investor subsidies are much more likely to disappear than a company with a service you're paying for which isn't beholden to any investor demands for infinite growth.

alberth 4y ago
> “ we expect users to pay if they have the means” Hi Drew I’d encourage you to start charging then based on your comment above. Because sourcehut pricing page currently says “payment is currently optional”. You’ve been in alpha for a few years now and I’m sure many of us would agree it’s totally appropriate for you to start officially charging based on the quality of your service. https://sourcehut.org/pricing/ https://sourcehut.org/pricing/
- ddevault 4y ago
  I should have been clearer: the expectation is only in force following the beta. We have a specific set of goals we would like to meet first. In the meantime we expect users to pay but are understanding of those who would prefer not to pay for incomplete software, even if our definition of "complete" exceeds industry standards.
zxspectrum1982 4y ago
But is it really profitable and sustainable? IIUC your report, you are paying developers (and yourself) only USD $30,000/year. The typical software developer would make at least three time that much elsewhere. With 3x salary, I'd say SourceHut would no longer be profitable or sustainable. Or am I missing something?
- ddevault 4y ago
  We pay out base salaries well below market rates, but we supplement them with the FOSS consultancy at each individual employee's discretion. With these sources combined, our total compensation is similar to market rates, and often more -- one of our engineers made over $150,000 last year. We also set aside 3 months base salary for all developers so that even in the worst case scenario of our revenue dropping to zero, they have security. I explained how some of this works the last time we posted a job ad: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2021-08-23-work-at-sourcehut/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2021-08-23-work-at-sourcehut/ The sustainability metrics are based on revenue covering the small base compensation plus operating expenses, as well as having a large enough standing balance to weather any unexpected events. We seek to make models which guarantee the longevity of the platform, and prioritize making sure that our cash flow will always provide for operating expenses. If our revenue dropped to zero today, we would be able to run the platform for several years. Ultimately, everyone involved in SourceHut is there because they believe in free software and believe in the model we've designed to further its cause. Our non-negotiable ethical standards calls for a creative business model to make this thing work. The work experience and impact we offer is something that is, in my opinion, completely unmatched in the industry. It's not for everyone, but we believe in what we're doing, and it's worth taking a gamble on an unproven business model.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

alberth 4y ago

> “ we expect users to pay if they have the means” Hi Drew I’d encourage you to start charging then based on your comment above. Because sourcehut pricing page currently says “payment is currently optional”. You’ve been in alpha for a few years now and I’m sure many of us would agree it’s totally appropriate for you to start officially charging based on the quality of your service. https://sourcehut.org/pricing/ https://sourcehut.org/pricing/

ddevault 4y ago
I should have been clearer: the expectation is only in force following the beta. We have a specific set of goals we would like to meet first. In the meantime we expect users to pay but are understanding of those who would prefer not to pay for incomplete software, even if our definition of "complete" exceeds industry standards.

zxspectrum1982 4y ago

But is it really profitable and sustainable? IIUC your report, you are paying developers (and yourself) only USD $30,000/year. The typical software developer would make at least three time that much elsewhere. With 3x salary, I'd say SourceHut would no longer be profitable or sustainable. Or am I missing something?

ddevault 4y ago
We pay out base salaries well below market rates, but we supplement them with the FOSS consultancy at each individual employee's discretion. With these sources combined, our total compensation is similar to market rates, and often more -- one of our engineers made over $150,000 last year. We also set aside 3 months base salary for all developers so that even in the worst case scenario of our revenue dropping to zero, they have security. I explained how some of this works the last time we posted a job ad: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2021-08-23-work-at-sourcehut/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2021-08-23-work-at-sourcehut/ The sustainability metrics are based on revenue covering the small base compensation plus operating expenses, as well as having a large enough standing balance to weather any unexpected events. We seek to make models which guarantee the longevity of the platform, and prioritize making sure that our cash flow will always provide for operating expenses. If our revenue dropped to zero today, we would be able to run the platform for several years. Ultimately, everyone involved in SourceHut is there because they believe in free software and believe in the model we've designed to further its cause. Our non-negotiable ethical standards calls for a creative business model to make this thing work. The work experience and impact we offer is something that is, in my opinion, completely unmatched in the industry. It's not for everyone, but we believe in what we're doing, and it's worth taking a gamble on an unproven business model.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]