5 ms·

Can I just say I love the pricing model. It's paid software, with an unenforced 'trial period'. Relying on coders who use a text editor all day and appreciate g

Can I just say I love the pricing model. It's paid software, with an unenforced 'trial period'. Relying on coders who use a text editor all day and appreciate good software and want to compensate someone for their good software. +1 humans.

juanpdelat 14y ago
I agree. It would be great to see some revenue numbers, if it's really successful (which I think it is), it would be a nice model for other developers or software companies.
- phn 14y ago
  I'm not sure about that. Developers tend to be more sensible about paying for software. Regular people will just download it without reading the "yada yada" stuff about paying. Case in point: WinRAR, anyone? EDIT: Just to clarify, I like the pricing model too. I just don't think it works for software in general.
  - xiaomai 14y ago
    An article on the demise of winamp suggested that the winamp people were receiving over $100,000 a month in checks sent by mail. I would suppose if you had an easier way to pay then checks by mail, even more "regular" people would be willing to pay. I point out winamp because it is similar in that no new features are unlocked after paying.
    - eli 14y ago
      Fair enough, though few of us will ever write software as popular as WinAMP once was.
- lloeki 14y ago
  Well, it's infinite trialware, but it pops a few nag screens here and there, especially when saving files. And this, when you are working and have a habit of mashing Cmd+S regularly, gets in the way often enough. I think the nag dial is just about right between casual use/unlimited evaluation and I'm using this editor for real shit.
- brittohalloran 14y ago
  Interestingly, I think this model works best for 'software for developers'. Developers naturally empathize with the author of their software much more so than a 'typical user' would.
  - jng 14y ago
    Developers are typically very bad software customers. As much as they could empathize, more often than not, they think they could do it themselves in a couple of weekends.
    - TimJRobinson 14y ago
      I have wasted so many months of my life in this trap, spending a few days coding an app myself rather than paying usually less than $100 for it (usually because I want some small feature it doesn't have) . I dont think its ever been worth it in the long run.
- JonnieCache 14y ago
  I'm fairly sure he's made really quite a large chunk of dollar out of it already. Especially after he started forcing people to pay up if they wanted the very latest builds. That was a stroke of genius.
  - sleepyhead 14y ago
    Really? I was using the dev builds without paying (bought my license yesterday).
    - wonderzombie 14y ago
      Nightly would be the very latest, I think. That is, it's not like, say, Chrome release where it's Dev -> Beta -> Stable. It is (was?) more like Nightly -> Dev -> Beta/Stable.
  - frou_dh 14y ago
    I saw it as more that he didn't want the masses trying to use potentially buggy builds as their 9-5 editor, which is what happened with "dev" beforehand.
randomfool 14y ago
Plus the license allows me use it on all of my machines (Linux, OSX, Windows), at home or at work, for commercial or non-profit purposes. That right there sold me- no issues at all getting purchase orders at work and regardless of the OS I'm using I still have the same editor.
- oso96_2000 14y ago
  That was the main reason why I purchased it. I love having a reliable editor on all OS.
desireco42 14y ago
I really appreciate being able to just use it on whatever machine I am at. I did bought it initially just to support the developer, but since I use both Linux, OSX and Win, it helps great deal to have two good editors, vim and Sublime Text ;)
tikhonj 14y ago
That's interesting. Back when I was using Windows, I had some tools (like WinRAR, I think) with that sort of license. I hated it. One of the things I really loved when switching to Linux is that I didn't have to deal with that sort of nonsense for an archiving tool, or for any other tool I needed but didn't use often.
- skeletonjelly 14y ago
  Would Flatr be appropriate here?
- nkohari 14y ago
  How often do you use a text editor?
  - tikhonj 14y ago
    Naturally, I use a text editor almost all the time. That doesn't make this licensing model any better though: it's still annoying, and there are still superior alternatives that are free in both senses of the word. For me, that alternative happens to be Emacs, but there are other options that are almost as good :P. Of course, it is much harder to learn how to use Emacs properly (navigating with the keyboard, using more obscure commands, writing your own elisp... and so on). However, as everybody has pointed out, your text editor is probably your most important tool; it seems odd to be willing to put down some money on one but not willing to sit down with a tutorial and learn how to use something like Emacs well. Sure it might slow you down for a bit (it took me about a week to get as proficient with Emacs as I was before), but it's completely worth it in the long run. I've been using Emacs for almost three years now, and it's helped me do all sorts of things more efficiently than I would have with another editor.
    - kstrauser 14y ago
      While I agree with almost everything you said, I think you're downplaying the importance of person preference. I used Emacs nearly exclusively for well over a decade, but fell in love with ST2 the moment I tried it. To me, it feels like a well-configured Emacs that's 95% the way I like it right out of the box. The other 5% has been easy to install through the package manager. As a bonus, it's scripted in a language I like working in. Don't assume that people are flocking to ST2 because they're not aware of the alternatives. I'm very aware of them. For me, the advantages of ST2 over Emacs were worth the money and I'm glad I bought a license. That said, I always keep the latest Emacs installed on my laptop and I could jump back into it if ST2 were to disappear off the planet tomorrow. I hope it doesn't, though, because I find ST2 more pleasant to use than Emacs and I hope I can keep using it for a long time.

juanpdelat 14y ago

I agree. It would be great to see some revenue numbers, if it's really successful (which I think it is), it would be a nice model for other developers or software companies.

phn 14y ago
I'm not sure about that. Developers tend to be more sensible about paying for software. Regular people will just download it without reading the "yada yada" stuff about paying. Case in point: WinRAR, anyone? EDIT: Just to clarify, I like the pricing model too. I just don't think it works for software in general.
- xiaomai 14y ago
  An article on the demise of winamp suggested that the winamp people were receiving over $100,000 a month in checks sent by mail. I would suppose if you had an easier way to pay then checks by mail, even more "regular" people would be willing to pay. I point out winamp because it is similar in that no new features are unlocked after paying.
  - eli 14y ago
    Fair enough, though few of us will ever write software as popular as WinAMP once was.
lloeki 14y ago
Well, it's infinite trialware, but it pops a few nag screens here and there, especially when saving files. And this, when you are working and have a habit of mashing Cmd+S regularly, gets in the way often enough. I think the nag dial is just about right between casual use/unlimited evaluation and I'm using this editor for real shit.
brittohalloran 14y ago
Interestingly, I think this model works best for 'software for developers'. Developers naturally empathize with the author of their software much more so than a 'typical user' would.
- jng 14y ago
  Developers are typically very bad software customers. As much as they could empathize, more often than not, they think they could do it themselves in a couple of weekends.
  - TimJRobinson 14y ago
    I have wasted so many months of my life in this trap, spending a few days coding an app myself rather than paying usually less than $100 for it (usually because I want some small feature it doesn't have) . I dont think its ever been worth it in the long run.
JonnieCache 14y ago
I'm fairly sure he's made really quite a large chunk of dollar out of it already. Especially after he started forcing people to pay up if they wanted the very latest builds. That was a stroke of genius.
- sleepyhead 14y ago
  Really? I was using the dev builds without paying (bought my license yesterday).
  - wonderzombie 14y ago
    Nightly would be the very latest, I think. That is, it's not like, say, Chrome release where it's Dev -> Beta -> Stable. It is (was?) more like Nightly -> Dev -> Beta/Stable.
- frou_dh 14y ago
  I saw it as more that he didn't want the masses trying to use potentially buggy builds as their 9-5 editor, which is what happened with "dev" beforehand.

randomfool 14y ago

Plus the license allows me use it on all of my machines (Linux, OSX, Windows), at home or at work, for commercial or non-profit purposes. That right there sold me- no issues at all getting purchase orders at work and regardless of the OS I'm using I still have the same editor.

oso96_2000 14y ago
That was the main reason why I purchased it. I love having a reliable editor on all OS.

desireco42 14y ago

I really appreciate being able to just use it on whatever machine I am at. I did bought it initially just to support the developer, but since I use both Linux, OSX and Win, it helps great deal to have two good editors, vim and Sublime Text ;)

tikhonj 14y ago

That's interesting. Back when I was using Windows, I had some tools (like WinRAR, I think) with that sort of license. I hated it. One of the things I really loved when switching to Linux is that I didn't have to deal with that sort of nonsense for an archiving tool, or for any other tool I needed but didn't use often.

skeletonjelly 14y ago
Would Flatr be appropriate here?
nkohari 14y ago
How often do you use a text editor?
- tikhonj 14y ago
  Naturally, I use a text editor almost all the time. That doesn't make this licensing model any better though: it's still annoying, and there are still superior alternatives that are free in both senses of the word. For me, that alternative happens to be Emacs, but there are other options that are almost as good :P. Of course, it is much harder to learn how to use Emacs properly (navigating with the keyboard, using more obscure commands, writing your own elisp... and so on). However, as everybody has pointed out, your text editor is probably your most important tool; it seems odd to be willing to put down some money on one but not willing to sit down with a tutorial and learn how to use something like Emacs well. Sure it might slow you down for a bit (it took me about a week to get as proficient with Emacs as I was before), but it's completely worth it in the long run. I've been using Emacs for almost three years now, and it's helped me do all sorts of things more efficiently than I would have with another editor.
  - kstrauser 14y ago
    While I agree with almost everything you said, I think you're downplaying the importance of person preference. I used Emacs nearly exclusively for well over a decade, but fell in love with ST2 the moment I tried it. To me, it feels like a well-configured Emacs that's 95% the way I like it right out of the box. The other 5% has been easy to install through the package manager. As a bonus, it's scripted in a language I like working in. Don't assume that people are flocking to ST2 because they're not aware of the alternatives. I'm very aware of them. For me, the advantages of ST2 over Emacs were worth the money and I'm glad I bought a license. That said, I always keep the latest Emacs installed on my laptop and I could jump back into it if ST2 were to disappear off the planet tomorrow. I hope it doesn't, though, because I find ST2 more pleasant to use than Emacs and I hope I can keep using it for a long time.