3 ms·

While I'd love for making money from open source to work like this, you're right, it doesn't. This is essentially an appeal to charity, but the problem is that

While I'd love for making money from open source to work like this, you're right, it doesn't. This is essentially an appeal to charity, but the problem is that companies aren't good at donating to charity! If you're an engineer at a company, it's the path of least resistance to NOT pay for this, so that's 99% of users accounted for. Then even for the 1% who are happy to put the effort in, getting this through budgeting when there's so little up-side for the company is hard. It's not even like charitable donations which may be tax efficient and something the company can use for marketing purposes. I'd suggest finding the features or support systems that only companies really care about and charging for them. Support, paid feature development, etc.

wvornbacher21 4y ago
As much as I sympathise with this person and what he's doing, I must say I agree with you. > This is essentially an appeal to charity. ...the problem is that it's not even very clearly an appeal to charity. It's sort of blurring a freemium opencore commercial model with charity. Paying for the premium-tier of a freemium product is one possible message to put out there. An appeal to charity is quite another. They are different messages appealing to different motivations. But when combined, they sort of diminish each other's effectiveness as a possible sales message. If I get into my charitable frame of mind, it produces cognitive dissonance to think that maybe this project doesn't need my charity if there are commercial users out there who can sustain the product by paying for the premium tier (as well they should if they make profitable use of the premium features). If I get into my business purchaser frame of mind, it produces cognitive dissonance to hear the author talk of my purchasing decision as an act of charity. It makes me think that even the sales guy acknowledges that I won't be getting anything worth what I'm paying for here. Not only that, but they also imply very different kinds of contracts, and as someone paying for this, I'd like to know which contract I'm getting into. If it's a commercial contract, I expect some kind of warranty that everything will work, and some kind of support or right to my money back if it doesn't. That's just implied in a commercial deal of any kind. (And frequently that's the piece in an open core business model that you pay for when you pay for the premium tier). So if I pay, and I take my problem to the source, I don't then want to hear "Sorry, can't help you out, but I did say from the beginning that the money I took from you was more of a donation than a payment for a commercial deal of any kind, and it's kind of uncharitable of you to now expect me to fix your problem if it distracts me from building new features which, ostensibly, you were supposed to be supporting."
- quietbritishjim 4y ago
  Agreed, and it reminds me of an old psych experiment: participants were asked to do a simple chore like make a hot drink (I forget the details). Those that were paid nothing did it in the same time as those paid a significant amount, while those paid only a few pennies took a lot longer. Even though a few pennies is strictly speaking more than nothing, it changed the nature of the action from a kind gesture to transactional.
reaperducer 4y ago
the problem is that companies aren't good at donating to charity! You hit the nail on the head right there. I know a billion-dollar company that uses all kinds of "free for personal use, $$$ for commercial use" software, and pays exactly $0 for the software. Even where I work, I've had to choose commercial software over open source solutions because I can't get any middle manager to understand that paying people for work they've already done for free is the right thing to do. And don't even get me started on the whole "If it's not available at CDW, we don't need it" crap.
- gjvc 4y ago
  And don't even get me started on the whole "If it's not available at CDW, we don't need it" crap. That sentence turns my stomach.
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  What is CDW? The IT company or something else?

wvornbacher21 4y ago

As much as I sympathise with this person and what he's doing, I must say I agree with you. > This is essentially an appeal to charity. ...the problem is that it's not even very clearly an appeal to charity. It's sort of blurring a freemium opencore commercial model with charity. Paying for the premium-tier of a freemium product is one possible message to put out there. An appeal to charity is quite another. They are different messages appealing to different motivations. But when combined, they sort of diminish each other's effectiveness as a possible sales message. If I get into my charitable frame of mind, it produces cognitive dissonance to think that maybe this project doesn't need my charity if there are commercial users out there who can sustain the product by paying for the premium tier (as well they should if they make profitable use of the premium features). If I get into my business purchaser frame of mind, it produces cognitive dissonance to hear the author talk of my purchasing decision as an act of charity. It makes me think that even the sales guy acknowledges that I won't be getting anything worth what I'm paying for here. Not only that, but they also imply very different kinds of contracts, and as someone paying for this, I'd like to know which contract I'm getting into. If it's a commercial contract, I expect some kind of warranty that everything will work, and some kind of support or right to my money back if it doesn't. That's just implied in a commercial deal of any kind. (And frequently that's the piece in an open core business model that you pay for when you pay for the premium tier). So if I pay, and I take my problem to the source, I don't then want to hear "Sorry, can't help you out, but I did say from the beginning that the money I took from you was more of a donation than a payment for a commercial deal of any kind, and it's kind of uncharitable of you to now expect me to fix your problem if it distracts me from building new features which, ostensibly, you were supposed to be supporting."

quietbritishjim 4y ago
Agreed, and it reminds me of an old psych experiment: participants were asked to do a simple chore like make a hot drink (I forget the details). Those that were paid nothing did it in the same time as those paid a significant amount, while those paid only a few pennies took a lot longer. Even though a few pennies is strictly speaking more than nothing, it changed the nature of the action from a kind gesture to transactional.

reaperducer 4y ago

the problem is that companies aren't good at donating to charity! You hit the nail on the head right there. I know a billion-dollar company that uses all kinds of "free for personal use, $$$ for commercial use" software, and pays exactly $0 for the software. Even where I work, I've had to choose commercial software over open source solutions because I can't get any middle manager to understand that paying people for work they've already done for free is the right thing to do. And don't even get me started on the whole "If it's not available at CDW, we don't need it" crap.

gjvc 4y ago
And don't even get me started on the whole "If it's not available at CDW, we don't need it" crap. That sentence turns my stomach.
bornfreddy 4y ago
What is CDW? The IT company or something else?