4 ms·

I think this might actually be harder for programmers, at least with respect to software. Because I know how to write (almost) everything myself, it seems funn

by ken 14y ago

I think this might actually be harder for programmers, at least with respect to software. Because I know how to write (almost) everything myself, it seems funny to pay for it, even in cases where logically I know it would save me far more time than it costs me in money. I paid for a commercial graphics program this week, and it was really hard for me to do, even though I know it will save me time. All I see are the (relatively few) bugs, and all I can think about are how I would have done it better. This could also be why "dev tools" are such a tarpit: at a certain stage, everybody realizes "I can write an XYZ!" (where XYZ = bug tracker, blog publisher, text editor, ...). The flip side is that if your target audience is programmers themselves, they'll be less likely to pay you because they know how to do all this, too. The people I've seen with the most success are those who sell to the people furthest from those who can do it themselves. If I were starting a restaurant I wouldn't try to market it primarily to chefs.

larrys 14y ago
"Because I know how to write (almost) everything myself, it seems funny to pay for it" Shit. If I had your talent I'd make a fortune. This is exactly why good programmers need to team up with biz guys.
- boyter 14y ago
  And yet many programmers looking at this path (myself included) have that exact mindset. I still find it amazing what software people pay for, even knowing that my mindset is wrong. Add in free/open source software and you will find the average developer attaches little monetary value to most software they create.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "what software people pay for" They aren't paying for software they are paying to solve a problem (at least in the case of business software). That is where the value is. Even with free or open source that comes at the cost of knowing how to operate it and even get it working on your machine in many cases. What people (who are not tinkerers and even tinkerers that don't have the time) want is to not have to think. Let's say they want to have some free software working on a cpu that doesn't have it. They don't want to spend the time to read anything and install anything. Everything takes time. They would rather just pay someone and be able to get started (maybe even with a little hand holding). That is where someone can make money. If you can write anything that can automate any process people will pay you for it and they should. You have solved a problem for them.
- Negitivefrags 14y ago
  A programmer having this mindset is reminds me of Turing Completeness. Once you reach a certain point as a programmer, you feel like you could do anything in the space of things that is possible to do. It just takes an unbounded amount of time. Anything you don't know you could learn given sufficient motivation to do so. It may not actually be true however.
wensing 14y ago
I have no reason to doubt your talent, but I have an aversion to the "I could do it myself" argument. What does that even mean? You could do it yourself if you had a year to work on it? 10 years? A lot of software contains code icebergs which render this "I could create this myself in a [insert short time period]" thinking moot.
- nadam 14y ago
  Yes, doing it yourself in a short time frame is not realistic in most cases. The real 'problem' are those people who make free software as a hobby. They write these softwares for years (sometimes with more free time than I would have if I would decide not to sleep at night at all), and this raises the barrier to entry for those who want to create paid products (for example bootstrapping on the side, with a family to support).
  - randallsquared 14y ago
    While more products in a market does make it less likely that a new competitor will gain share, the fact that free tools exist to do almost any coding-related activity so significantly lowers barriers to entry that it seems very likely that the net effect of open source is lower barriers overall. In any case, I'm not sure that the existence of competitors can be considered a barrier to entry.
  - wensing 14y ago
    You should be able to differentiate yourself from those projects by focusing on something full-time and adding your unique expertise to the mix. You are a unique human being, after all. If you can't, you shouldn't bother. I created Stormpulse while bootstrapping on the side with a family to support. Ultimately the competition became irrelevant because it's an extension/expression of myself which can't be easily duplicated and provides immediate differentiation.
- ken 14y ago
  I didn't intend to brag, because I'm not a particularly good programmer. I only mean that, once you've taken the "Compilers" and "Operating Systems" classes in college, there's really no mystery left. You are absolutely correct that it would take me a long time to do any of it. (I'm also bad at estimating how long things take, BTW!) Then again, for most big polished software I use, I don't use most of its features ever. There may be icebergs, but chances are most of them are in code that I wouldn't write in the first place, if I was only writing for myself.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by ken 14y ago

larrys 14y ago

"Because I know how to write (almost) everything myself, it seems funny to pay for it" Shit. If I had your talent I'd make a fortune. This is exactly why good programmers need to team up with biz guys.

boyter 14y ago
And yet many programmers looking at this path (myself included) have that exact mindset. I still find it amazing what software people pay for, even knowing that my mindset is wrong. Add in free/open source software and you will find the average developer attaches little monetary value to most software they create.
- larrys 14y ago
  "what software people pay for" They aren't paying for software they are paying to solve a problem (at least in the case of business software). That is where the value is. Even with free or open source that comes at the cost of knowing how to operate it and even get it working on your machine in many cases. What people (who are not tinkerers and even tinkerers that don't have the time) want is to not have to think. Let's say they want to have some free software working on a cpu that doesn't have it. They don't want to spend the time to read anything and install anything. Everything takes time. They would rather just pay someone and be able to get started (maybe even with a little hand holding). That is where someone can make money. If you can write anything that can automate any process people will pay you for it and they should. You have solved a problem for them.
Negitivefrags 14y ago
A programmer having this mindset is reminds me of Turing Completeness. Once you reach a certain point as a programmer, you feel like you could do anything in the space of things that is possible to do. It just takes an unbounded amount of time. Anything you don't know you could learn given sufficient motivation to do so. It may not actually be true however.

wensing 14y ago

I have no reason to doubt your talent, but I have an aversion to the "I could do it myself" argument. What does that even mean? You could do it yourself if you had a year to work on it? 10 years? A lot of software contains code icebergs which render this "I could create this myself in a [insert short time period]" thinking moot.

nadam 14y ago
Yes, doing it yourself in a short time frame is not realistic in most cases. The real 'problem' are those people who make free software as a hobby. They write these softwares for years (sometimes with more free time than I would have if I would decide not to sleep at night at all), and this raises the barrier to entry for those who want to create paid products (for example bootstrapping on the side, with a family to support).
- randallsquared 14y ago
  While more products in a market does make it less likely that a new competitor will gain share, the fact that free tools exist to do almost any coding-related activity so significantly lowers barriers to entry that it seems very likely that the net effect of open source is lower barriers overall. In any case, I'm not sure that the existence of competitors can be considered a barrier to entry.
- wensing 14y ago
  You should be able to differentiate yourself from those projects by focusing on something full-time and adding your unique expertise to the mix. You are a unique human being, after all. If you can't, you shouldn't bother. I created Stormpulse while bootstrapping on the side with a family to support. Ultimately the competition became irrelevant because it's an extension/expression of myself which can't be easily duplicated and provides immediate differentiation.
ken 14y ago
I didn't intend to brag, because I'm not a particularly good programmer. I only mean that, once you've taken the "Compilers" and "Operating Systems" classes in college, there's really no mystery left. You are absolutely correct that it would take me a long time to do any of it. (I'm also bad at estimating how long things take, BTW!) Then again, for most big polished software I use, I don't use most of its features ever. There may be icebergs, but chances are most of them are in code that I wouldn't write in the first place, if I was only writing for myself.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]