5 ms·

I may have missed something, but I believe the point is to get it developed with the help of Kickstarter-money in the first place and then sell through the norm

by Zirro 14y ago

I may have missed something, but I believe the point is to get it developed with the help of Kickstarter-money in the first place and then sell through the normal channels to fund future development. As incentive for backers, they most likely get away with a cheaper price than the one we'll see later when the first version is out for sale.

modeless 14y ago
It's not entirely clear how it can require a license and be open source at the same time. I suppose we'll see how open it really is when it's released. But selling licenses doesn't preclude also having a way to pay for bug fixing priority.
- Zirro 14y ago
  Being open-source and selling doesn't have to exclude each other. You just have to trust the buyers moral, as in, if they're using it to create things they get paid for, they also pay for a license of your application. Also, since when has having a closed source ever prevented piracy anyway?
  - jules 14y ago
    That's a really big if. If it's truly open source then there will also be multiple contributors. Who do you pay? People always say this "open source doesn't mean you're not allowed to sell it!" and that's technically correct, but I don't think this strategy has ever been demonstrated to be economically feasible.
    - leif 14y ago
      Red hat is a billion dollar company.
      - jules 14y ago
        Then again Red Hat's value add is the support. Red Hat's business model is not to rely on its customers' altruism. There are various reasons to dislike such a model, especially for an IDE, not the least of which is that the point of a well-designed IDE like LightTable is that it's easy to use and does not require a support contract. Being a support company creates the conflicting incentive that the software should not be too easy to use. Furthermore, support is not fun; you need to be a big company to earn a significant amount of money, because revenue is directly tied to man hours. Making new and exciting IDEs is fun, and revenue can be more directly tied to the value you produce, rather than the hours you put in.
        stcredzero 14y ago
        There are various reasons to dislike such a model, especially for an IDE, not the least of which is that the point of a well-designed IDE like LightTable is that it's easy to use and does not require a support contract. Lots of BigCo are paranoid about the support contract thing. Sometimes partners and investors want to see support contracts in place as a security blanket. In those cases, the support contract for a "well designed" IDE in your scenario is just free money. JetBrains seems to do alright selling IDEs. In their case, I think people pay for the value, and they continue to pay for upgrades. Support is through the web, so it fits in with revenue commensurate with value.
        jules 14y ago
        Yes, indeed. JetBrains uses a closed source model and that works really well (they have a "lite" open source version, but the version they earn money from is closed source). I'm not saying that you shouldn't do support at all, just that it shouldn't be your primary business model.
      - adgar 14y ago
        So you're saying he should sell IDE support? How does that business model work? People always respond with "Red Hat" in this argument and it never makes any sense. Why doesn't anybody think anymore?
- jes5199 14y ago
  I know someone who wrote GPL software and sold alternate non-GPL licenses - apparently (at the time, at least) some organizations had very paranoid lawyers who won't allow any GPL software to be used. He called it the "Sap" license. Those particular companies tended to have deep pockets, so this worked out.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    some organizations had very paranoid lawyers who won't allow any GPL software to be used. I was working for such an organization a few years ago. On top of that, one of the founders would even post "anti-communist" rants against Open Source on the company intranet.
- GlennS 14y ago
  As I understand it: the source will be freely available for you to download, modify and compile. But if you want some nice convenient binaries then there'll be a small charge. Seems reasonable: you pay for convenience.

by Zirro 14y ago

modeless 14y ago

It's not entirely clear how it can require a license and be open source at the same time. I suppose we'll see how open it really is when it's released. But selling licenses doesn't preclude also having a way to pay for bug fixing priority.

Zirro 14y ago
Being open-source and selling doesn't have to exclude each other. You just have to trust the buyers moral, as in, if they're using it to create things they get paid for, they also pay for a license of your application. Also, since when has having a closed source ever prevented piracy anyway?
- jules 14y ago
  That's a really big if. If it's truly open source then there will also be multiple contributors. Who do you pay? People always say this "open source doesn't mean you're not allowed to sell it!" and that's technically correct, but I don't think this strategy has ever been demonstrated to be economically feasible.
  - leif 14y ago
    Red hat is a billion dollar company.
    - jules 14y ago
      Then again Red Hat's value add is the support. Red Hat's business model is not to rely on its customers' altruism. There are various reasons to dislike such a model, especially for an IDE, not the least of which is that the point of a well-designed IDE like LightTable is that it's easy to use and does not require a support contract. Being a support company creates the conflicting incentive that the software should not be too easy to use. Furthermore, support is not fun; you need to be a big company to earn a significant amount of money, because revenue is directly tied to man hours. Making new and exciting IDEs is fun, and revenue can be more directly tied to the value you produce, rather than the hours you put in.
      - stcredzero 14y ago
        There are various reasons to dislike such a model, especially for an IDE, not the least of which is that the point of a well-designed IDE like LightTable is that it's easy to use and does not require a support contract. Lots of BigCo are paranoid about the support contract thing. Sometimes partners and investors want to see support contracts in place as a security blanket. In those cases, the support contract for a "well designed" IDE in your scenario is just free money. JetBrains seems to do alright selling IDEs. In their case, I think people pay for the value, and they continue to pay for upgrades. Support is through the web, so it fits in with revenue commensurate with value.
        jules 14y ago
        Yes, indeed. JetBrains uses a closed source model and that works really well (they have a "lite" open source version, but the version they earn money from is closed source). I'm not saying that you shouldn't do support at all, just that it shouldn't be your primary business model.
    - adgar 14y ago
      So you're saying he should sell IDE support? How does that business model work? People always respond with "Red Hat" in this argument and it never makes any sense. Why doesn't anybody think anymore?
jes5199 14y ago
I know someone who wrote GPL software and sold alternate non-GPL licenses - apparently (at the time, at least) some organizations had very paranoid lawyers who won't allow any GPL software to be used. He called it the "Sap" license. Those particular companies tended to have deep pockets, so this worked out.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  some organizations had very paranoid lawyers who won't allow any GPL software to be used. I was working for such an organization a few years ago. On top of that, one of the founders would even post "anti-communist" rants against Open Source on the company intranet.
GlennS 14y ago
As I understand it: the source will be freely available for you to download, modify and compile. But if you want some nice convenient binaries then there'll be a small charge. Seems reasonable: you pay for convenience.