3 ms·

For a VC-backed company, this will never ever generate enough revenue growth. So, the real answer is: "If all goes well, we will keep raising VC money and get a

by shafyy 2y ago

For a VC-backed company, this will never ever generate enough revenue growth. So, the real answer is: "If all goes well, we will keep raising VC money and get acquired and shutdown / butchered in 5-10 years". Like Bluesky, this monetization plan they present is just something to calm down the haters and sceptics. But if you think for two seconds, it does not make sense.

benterix 2y ago
It might happen the way you describe, or, if they get more popular, then may try to think harder and offer more paid options. Now they're in a growth stage - they need to convince the largest possible number of developers they should switch from VS Code, and that is already a difficult task.
- xg15 2y ago
  I know, this is the standard VC playbook: First growth at all costs to get everyone into the ecosystem, then pull up the net and monetize. The latter phase is usually when all the subscriptions, value-add nag screens, data sharing agreements and other enshittification goodies pop up. And how would it work otherwise? You can't perpetually offer a product for free (in all senses of the word) AND satisfy exponential ROI expectations at the same time. If this is what's going on here, I'm worried what the "monetization" phase will entail.
  - hu3 2y ago
    The other option I see is being owned by a behemoth like Microsoft, in VSCode case, who can pay millions per month in engineering salaries and PaaS, while keeping it free. They are so big they can monetize it using Copilot or not even monetize it properly, just to get good faith from Developers, Developers, Developers. I like it.
    - shafyy 2y ago
      No, the other option is something like Sublime Text that has a small team working on it and is paid for by a very fair one-off payment by the customer.
      - hu3 2y ago
        Sounds like a third option. I have a Sublime license and I like it. But no need to discard VSCode. They are different tools anyway.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- shafyy 2y ago
  And while doing this, they fuck the whole market.
JeremyNT 2y ago
Well as an end user this is pretty much OK right, so long as you are aware of the deal? VC funded companies have subsidized and then abandoned a lot of useful OSS code over the years. Whenever you encounter a VC backed open source project you know the rug pull will come eventually. It doesn't make the code they have written any less useful. If the tool is good enough then it will be forked and live on.
- shafyy 2y ago
  No, it's not ok. It fucks the whole market by subsidizing the growth with VC money. Either a big company will buy them, consolidating their power, or they will IPO and the VCs will cash out and let the public bear the cost. It fucks the customers who are not as well-informed about this as you are. In summary, it fucking sucks.
- bigfatkitten 2y ago
  They're already laying the groundwork for a rug pull. The fact that the developers will happy let you hide any button in the UI except the sign in button is a giant red flag. https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/pull/11802 https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/pull/11802

by shafyy 2y ago

benterix 2y ago

It might happen the way you describe, or, if they get more popular, then may try to think harder and offer more paid options. Now they're in a growth stage - they need to convince the largest possible number of developers they should switch from VS Code, and that is already a difficult task.

xg15 2y ago
I know, this is the standard VC playbook: First growth at all costs to get everyone into the ecosystem, then pull up the net and monetize. The latter phase is usually when all the subscriptions, value-add nag screens, data sharing agreements and other enshittification goodies pop up. And how would it work otherwise? You can't perpetually offer a product for free (in all senses of the word) AND satisfy exponential ROI expectations at the same time. If this is what's going on here, I'm worried what the "monetization" phase will entail.
- hu3 2y ago
  The other option I see is being owned by a behemoth like Microsoft, in VSCode case, who can pay millions per month in engineering salaries and PaaS, while keeping it free. They are so big they can monetize it using Copilot or not even monetize it properly, just to get good faith from Developers, Developers, Developers. I like it.
  - shafyy 2y ago
    No, the other option is something like Sublime Text that has a small team working on it and is paid for by a very fair one-off payment by the customer.
    - hu3 2y ago
      Sounds like a third option. I have a Sublime license and I like it. But no need to discard VSCode. They are different tools anyway.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
shafyy 2y ago
And while doing this, they fuck the whole market.

JeremyNT 2y ago

Well as an end user this is pretty much OK right, so long as you are aware of the deal? VC funded companies have subsidized and then abandoned a lot of useful OSS code over the years. Whenever you encounter a VC backed open source project you know the rug pull will come eventually. It doesn't make the code they have written any less useful. If the tool is good enough then it will be forked and live on.

shafyy 2y ago
No, it's not ok. It fucks the whole market by subsidizing the growth with VC money. Either a big company will buy them, consolidating their power, or they will IPO and the VCs will cash out and let the public bear the cost. It fucks the customers who are not as well-informed about this as you are. In summary, it fucking sucks.
bigfatkitten 2y ago
They're already laying the groundwork for a rug pull. The fact that the developers will happy let you hide any button in the UI except the sign in button is a giant red flag. https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/pull/11802 https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/pull/11802