4 ms·

This has been on my radar for a while. It's so impressive. Bundling electron for all platforms can be a real headache. The only issue is, it's hard to commit $

This has been on my radar for a while. It's so impressive. Bundling electron for all platforms can be a real headache. The only issue is, it's hard to commit $99/mo for a solo developer to trial a small app. (I know it's pennies for businesses)

davej 3y ago
Feel free to drop me an email dave[at]todesktop or dm @davej on Twitter. I started ToDesktop as an indie hacker, so I understand where you're coming from. Hopefully can figure out something that works for you. :)
mike_hearn 3y ago
What do you think is a fair price for a solo dev trialling a small app? I'm asking because my firm makes a competitor to ToDesktop (sort of) [1], and this is a question we often get. It's free for open source apps and cheaper than ToDesktop, but the "I just want to trial an idea and not spend any money on it" use case isn't well supported by this pricing model. One possibility is a trial period, but then how long should it be? Alternatively some mechanism that limits the number of installs, and which therefore has a lower price point attached. However it seems a bit pointless because signing certificates cost on the order of hundreds of dollars a year anyway, and then file hosting also adds cost. So if you aren't willing to commit on the order of that much up front, then it may be a lost cause. To drive costs lower you need to take signing out of the equation entirely, which means someone else signs and sandboxes the resulting code. [1] https://hydraulic.dev/ https://hydraulic.dev/
- devmor 3y ago
  Sounds to me like "trial" apps skipping the signing process is a good option. A dev team can click the "Run Untrusted Program" button, and it serves as an incentive to upgrade before distributing.
  - mike_hearn 3y ago
    Well, Conveyor can already self sign and produce a download page with instructions telling the users what to do. It's fine for internal demos and dev teams indeed. But browsers/operating systems will generate security warnings, and so that might be offputting to end users. You'd be unsure if your app was struggling due to that, or due to some product flaw. Then there's the question of how long a trial would last. It could take months until someone decides whether their app is going to fly or not.
    - devmor 3y ago
      In my mind, a trial of the service isn't something that I'd be distributing to end users. If I were trialing your service, it'd be to figure out how it works into my dev process and the decision to purchase would come before I'm sending executable out to anyone but my dev team. At that point, it's locked in to an extent - I'm not going to want to tell my users "Actually, don't update the app using the automatic updater, go download a new exe instead and use the automatic updater on that one from now on." since that kind of friction can cost a lot of users.
      - mike_hearn 3y ago
        That sort of trial already works. ToDesktop is a service but Conveyor is a tool, so you provide your own web server in our case. If the web server you set for updates is localhost then you don't have to pay or sign up, you can just download it and use it until you're satisfied it fits. Now, what if you want to distribute within your team? Well, then your compadres would need to run a localhost server too if they want to see updates working. But that's probably OK. This lets you run the purchasing process in parallel with getting it set up if your company is slow to authorize payments (the tool will give you a payment link you can send to anyone).
        devmor 3y ago
        I think you're in a different bucket than the OP's product, in that case. A fair price to trial at that stage of development is a lot different than charging $99/mo from the get-go. From my view, as a solo dev with a lot of small clients and personal projects, I start a lot of projects that make their way into the hands of collaborators but never make it to a project that's ready to finish. I would loathe to pay that kind of price for those. But if I'm at the point where I have beta testers and other kinds of non-client/dev personnel, I'm a lot more ready to put down significant cash for dev tooling.

davej 3y ago

Feel free to drop me an email dave[at]todesktop or dm @davej on Twitter. I started ToDesktop as an indie hacker, so I understand where you're coming from. Hopefully can figure out something that works for you. :)

mike_hearn 3y ago

What do you think is a fair price for a solo dev trialling a small app? I'm asking because my firm makes a competitor to ToDesktop (sort of) [1], and this is a question we often get. It's free for open source apps and cheaper than ToDesktop, but the "I just want to trial an idea and not spend any money on it" use case isn't well supported by this pricing model. One possibility is a trial period, but then how long should it be? Alternatively some mechanism that limits the number of installs, and which therefore has a lower price point attached. However it seems a bit pointless because signing certificates cost on the order of hundreds of dollars a year anyway, and then file hosting also adds cost. So if you aren't willing to commit on the order of that much up front, then it may be a lost cause. To drive costs lower you need to take signing out of the equation entirely, which means someone else signs and sandboxes the resulting code. [1] https://hydraulic.dev/ https://hydraulic.dev/

devmor 3y ago
Sounds to me like "trial" apps skipping the signing process is a good option. A dev team can click the "Run Untrusted Program" button, and it serves as an incentive to upgrade before distributing.
- mike_hearn 3y ago
  Well, Conveyor can already self sign and produce a download page with instructions telling the users what to do. It's fine for internal demos and dev teams indeed. But browsers/operating systems will generate security warnings, and so that might be offputting to end users. You'd be unsure if your app was struggling due to that, or due to some product flaw. Then there's the question of how long a trial would last. It could take months until someone decides whether their app is going to fly or not.
  - devmor 3y ago
    In my mind, a trial of the service isn't something that I'd be distributing to end users. If I were trialing your service, it'd be to figure out how it works into my dev process and the decision to purchase would come before I'm sending executable out to anyone but my dev team. At that point, it's locked in to an extent - I'm not going to want to tell my users "Actually, don't update the app using the automatic updater, go download a new exe instead and use the automatic updater on that one from now on." since that kind of friction can cost a lot of users.
    - mike_hearn 3y ago
      That sort of trial already works. ToDesktop is a service but Conveyor is a tool, so you provide your own web server in our case. If the web server you set for updates is localhost then you don't have to pay or sign up, you can just download it and use it until you're satisfied it fits. Now, what if you want to distribute within your team? Well, then your compadres would need to run a localhost server too if they want to see updates working. But that's probably OK. This lets you run the purchasing process in parallel with getting it set up if your company is slow to authorize payments (the tool will give you a payment link you can send to anyone).
      - devmor 3y ago
        I think you're in a different bucket than the OP's product, in that case. A fair price to trial at that stage of development is a lot different than charging $99/mo from the get-go. From my view, as a solo dev with a lot of small clients and personal projects, I start a lot of projects that make their way into the hands of collaborators but never make it to a project that's ready to finish. I would loathe to pay that kind of price for those. But if I'm at the point where I have beta testers and other kinds of non-client/dev personnel, I'm a lot more ready to put down significant cash for dev tooling.