5 ms·

not sure i think this is a good way to fund their work BUT exploring models to make open-source sustainable for the developers does seem like a good thing, no?

foofoo12 1y ago
> exploring models This model of using deception to hide costs isn't exactly "exploring". It's tried and tested.
- mbvisti 1y ago
  you're stretching the definition of deception here my guy-what do you want them to do? plaster a big sign on the landing page stating that this framework ALSO contains pro features that you have to pay for?
  - porridgeraisin 1y ago
    > plaster a big sign Yes!! That's table stakes. It's the bare minimum needed to not be considered malice.
    - sudodevnull 1y ago
      Why? What is at stake?
      - porridgeraisin 1y ago
        Basic decency of being upfront about your business model, and in general being upfront and not being deceitful in life. Anyways, constructively, they should add a usual pricing page with a nav for that at the top of the landing page. It makes it clear that something is priced, right on the landing page. In the pricing page the cards better make the costs super clear.
        hasanhaja 1y ago
        I'm confused. Datastar is a free open source framework that you can choose to use or not. It's weird to call them out as indecent and deceitful for not actively marketing features that they really don't think you need. Even when you think you need it, they've actively encouraged people to analyze their problems to identify if it's a real need or a gap in hypermedia fundamentals knowledge. Also, the top nav has a Pro page that has what you're looking for.
        bkmq 1y ago
        ”Ready for liftoff?” should have a go-pro button. That’s all that is needed.
        hasanhaja 1y ago
        Why have a call-to-action to something they don't want you to do? It's only there for Pro users and people who want to support the project [1] and not normal use. [1] https://data-star.dev/essays/greedy_developer https://data-star.dev/essays/greedy_developer
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    > what do you want them to do? > plaster a big sign on the landing page stating that this framework ALSO contains pro features that you have to pay for? Yes. I for one don't enjoy being on the receiving end of these marketing dark patterns and manipulation tactics.
    - mbvisti 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - skeeter2020 1y ago
      I've commented above that this seems like a bad approach, but it sure feels like a lack of awareness vs. an intentional dark pattern. The internet makes it so easy to assume the worst but I think this is a case where we should start with the most charitable interpretation.
      - sudodevnull 1y ago
        Dark pattern? Pro plugins are built in the same way as is accessible to any user. What's the real issue?
        bkmq 1y ago
        That you have to go looking, actively, to realise there is a paid option.
  - foofoo12 1y ago
    > what do you want them to do? The common thing to do today is put a "pricing" menu item at the top right. That'd be fine.
bradly 1y ago
I have no problem with anyone charging what they would like, but I do think it should be mentioned on the homepage. It feels intentionally left off which makes me think the developers themselves aren't 100% comfortable with the model.
- nchmy 1y ago
  They're completely comfortable with and unapologetic about the model. And they're not hiding anything.
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    Ok, so their homepage design unintentionally omits that pertinent information. I’ve wasted a couple of hours installing a FOSS package for a personal project only to find out one of the most heavily presented features was a paid add-in. Even if it’s bad communication design add not intentional, it feels like a salesey bait-and-switch tactic in that situation, and they probably want to know that.
    - hasanhaja 1y ago
      Which feature are you referring to?
      - skeeter2020 1y ago
        not the OP, but a lot of the referenced functionality looks like I might use it. The problem is I'm not going to bother trying this and investing any effort with even the looming possibility I'll need to pay to keep going. I don't think too many people approach this space with a purchase evaluation mindset like say, "I'm going to test out this grid to see if we should buy it". In that case pay-for advanced functionality is part of the approach from the start. Also, I can't see this approach working. Getting enterprise adoption of a front end framework is almost impossible outside of React, let alone paying for a niche one, and the "contact us" approach is a non-starter.
imiric 1y ago
I do think this is the most sustainable approach for monetizing open source projects, as long as the developer is fair about it. That is, truly make features that only large and/or enterprise users would have a use for, and only charge for those, instead of arbitrarily deciding to put core features of the software behind a paywall. In the case of a web framework, that choice is a bit difficult. But if the software is fully functional for the large majority of users, then charging for niche features, or those that are actively discouraged, sounds like a fair approach to me.
- nchmy 1y ago
  This is exactly what is done here. They're emphatic that most will/should never need the pro features.
  - simonw 1y ago
    Looking at https://data-star.dev/reference/datastar_pro#pro-features https://data-star.dev/reference/datastar_pro#pro-features the features that stood out for me as things I would want to to use (and that don't feel particularly "pro" to me) are the animation features, data-replace-url, data-on-resize, data-scroll-into-view, the @clipboard() mechanism and, most importantly, the debugging tool. My problem with this business model is that it has a chilling effect on open source contributions to the project, because it incentivizes the core maintainers to not accept community contributions that overlap with the paid features.
    - nchmy 1y ago
      Datastar is currently in the Release Candidate phase of v1, which they seem to be certain will be the final form of Datastar. So, they're really not looking for "community contributions" to the core of datastar, other than for feedback to polish it off. Moreover, ALL of the features are "plugins" - there's nothing stopping anyone from building and sharing their own. It is actually encouraged. In fact, in their next release they'll be releasing and documenting some sort of public API for plugins. Not sure exactly how it will differ from the current form though, since you can already make your own plugins. They also intend to have some sort of free, open-source "marketplace" for community-built web components, based on their upcoming Rocket web component and Stellar css framework. You would just need to have the Datastar pro license to be able to use any of them. I can see how this final part might be criticized, but it does seem quite fair to me. Sustainable open source is a big problem - in recent months ive had some important fully-open source dependencies disappear - even ones that were backed by well-funded companies. Moreover, Datastar is registered as a 501c3, and they really don't intend to "make money" from all of this. Its just to pay the bills, travel to conferences etc... They're very reasonable people and open to all discussion in their discord. Im sure that whatever concerns you still have could be explained quickly if you went there. In fact, i just posted there about this thread and how its overflowing with nonsensical complaints about how there's no link to or mention of Pro on the homepage - they said sure, we'll add a link.

foofoo12 1y ago

> exploring models This model of using deception to hide costs isn't exactly "exploring". It's tried and tested.

mbvisti 1y ago
you're stretching the definition of deception here my guy-what do you want them to do? plaster a big sign on the landing page stating that this framework ALSO contains pro features that you have to pay for?
- porridgeraisin 1y ago
  > plaster a big sign Yes!! That's table stakes. It's the bare minimum needed to not be considered malice.
  - sudodevnull 1y ago
    Why? What is at stake?
    - porridgeraisin 1y ago
      Basic decency of being upfront about your business model, and in general being upfront and not being deceitful in life. Anyways, constructively, they should add a usual pricing page with a nav for that at the top of the landing page. It makes it clear that something is priced, right on the landing page. In the pricing page the cards better make the costs super clear.
      - hasanhaja 1y ago
        I'm confused. Datastar is a free open source framework that you can choose to use or not. It's weird to call them out as indecent and deceitful for not actively marketing features that they really don't think you need. Even when you think you need it, they've actively encouraged people to analyze their problems to identify if it's a real need or a gap in hypermedia fundamentals knowledge. Also, the top nav has a Pro page that has what you're looking for.
        bkmq 1y ago
        ”Ready for liftoff?” should have a go-pro button. That’s all that is needed.
        hasanhaja 1y ago
        Why have a call-to-action to something they don't want you to do? It's only there for Pro users and people who want to support the project [1] and not normal use. [1] https://data-star.dev/essays/greedy_developer https://data-star.dev/essays/greedy_developer
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  > what do you want them to do? > plaster a big sign on the landing page stating that this framework ALSO contains pro features that you have to pay for? Yes. I for one don't enjoy being on the receiving end of these marketing dark patterns and manipulation tactics.
  - mbvisti 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - skeeter2020 1y ago
    I've commented above that this seems like a bad approach, but it sure feels like a lack of awareness vs. an intentional dark pattern. The internet makes it so easy to assume the worst but I think this is a case where we should start with the most charitable interpretation.
    - sudodevnull 1y ago
      Dark pattern? Pro plugins are built in the same way as is accessible to any user. What's the real issue?
      - bkmq 1y ago
        That you have to go looking, actively, to realise there is a paid option.
- foofoo12 1y ago
  > what do you want them to do? The common thing to do today is put a "pricing" menu item at the top right. That'd be fine.

bradly 1y ago

I have no problem with anyone charging what they would like, but I do think it should be mentioned on the homepage. It feels intentionally left off which makes me think the developers themselves aren't 100% comfortable with the model.

nchmy 1y ago
They're completely comfortable with and unapologetic about the model. And they're not hiding anything.
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  Ok, so their homepage design unintentionally omits that pertinent information. I’ve wasted a couple of hours installing a FOSS package for a personal project only to find out one of the most heavily presented features was a paid add-in. Even if it’s bad communication design add not intentional, it feels like a salesey bait-and-switch tactic in that situation, and they probably want to know that.
  - hasanhaja 1y ago
    Which feature are you referring to?
    - skeeter2020 1y ago
      not the OP, but a lot of the referenced functionality looks like I might use it. The problem is I'm not going to bother trying this and investing any effort with even the looming possibility I'll need to pay to keep going. I don't think too many people approach this space with a purchase evaluation mindset like say, "I'm going to test out this grid to see if we should buy it". In that case pay-for advanced functionality is part of the approach from the start. Also, I can't see this approach working. Getting enterprise adoption of a front end framework is almost impossible outside of React, let alone paying for a niche one, and the "contact us" approach is a non-starter.

imiric 1y ago

I do think this is the most sustainable approach for monetizing open source projects, as long as the developer is fair about it. That is, truly make features that only large and/or enterprise users would have a use for, and only charge for those, instead of arbitrarily deciding to put core features of the software behind a paywall. In the case of a web framework, that choice is a bit difficult. But if the software is fully functional for the large majority of users, then charging for niche features, or those that are actively discouraged, sounds like a fair approach to me.

nchmy 1y ago
This is exactly what is done here. They're emphatic that most will/should never need the pro features.
- simonw 1y ago
  Looking at https://data-star.dev/reference/datastar_pro#pro-features https://data-star.dev/reference/datastar_pro#pro-features the features that stood out for me as things I would want to to use (and that don't feel particularly "pro" to me) are the animation features, data-replace-url, data-on-resize, data-scroll-into-view, the @clipboard() mechanism and, most importantly, the debugging tool. My problem with this business model is that it has a chilling effect on open source contributions to the project, because it incentivizes the core maintainers to not accept community contributions that overlap with the paid features.
  - nchmy 1y ago
    Datastar is currently in the Release Candidate phase of v1, which they seem to be certain will be the final form of Datastar. So, they're really not looking for "community contributions" to the core of datastar, other than for feedback to polish it off. Moreover, ALL of the features are "plugins" - there's nothing stopping anyone from building and sharing their own. It is actually encouraged. In fact, in their next release they'll be releasing and documenting some sort of public API for plugins. Not sure exactly how it will differ from the current form though, since you can already make your own plugins. They also intend to have some sort of free, open-source "marketplace" for community-built web components, based on their upcoming Rocket web component and Stellar css framework. You would just need to have the Datastar pro license to be able to use any of them. I can see how this final part might be criticized, but it does seem quite fair to me. Sustainable open source is a big problem - in recent months ive had some important fully-open source dependencies disappear - even ones that were backed by well-funded companies. Moreover, Datastar is registered as a 501c3, and they really don't intend to "make money" from all of this. Its just to pay the bills, travel to conferences etc... They're very reasonable people and open to all discussion in their discord. Im sure that whatever concerns you still have could be explained quickly if you went there. In fact, i just posted there about this thread and how its overflowing with nonsensical complaints about how there's no link to or mention of Pro on the homepage - they said sure, we'll add a link.