7 ms·

I'm in the crowdfunding business, so I feel strange saying this, but I'm really turned off by this model of 'pay us in advance for developing a product that has

by nhangen 13y ago

I'm in the crowdfunding business, so I feel strange saying this, but I'm really turned off by this model of 'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated,' especially when asking for a sum as large as is $100,000. What happened to building something and selling it? According to the campaign page, the need is so great because: "We're asking for a lot of money, so of course you should know why. $100.000 means paying two people $4166 a month for a year, including all taxes, insurance and other fees." I suppose people get what they pay for, but I find it insulting to ask me to pay your salary for a year so that you can avoid risk. If you were truly concerned about online privacy, you'd build it anyway. So is privacy the mission, or the pitch?

tstrimple 13y ago
I see it as a form of customer development. The days of building something and hoping people like it when you're done should be over. If they can generate enough interest to support the development they know they are working on a product that people are interested in and will actually pay them for.
ptype 13y ago
Actually, I don't think they are looking to build a business out of this? From the web site: "This is the Mailpile business model. As long as members of our community are willing to fund development (we will ask you to renew your membership in a years' time), we will dedicate ourselves to Mailpile and build the secure web-mail client you want."
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  This and the parent combined are the interesting bit. So this is exactly the Richard Stallman model of software. Pay people to develop it, don't charge anything for the software and give away the source. There is no economic incentive for the donors (they might get a mail program, might not, but they will never get their money back or a return on that money.) I suppose rms originally imagined that someone like the mailpile people would take the money they were given to create mailpile and give it to some other developer to create the tools they need. However, as we see in this campaign, all the money they get will go toward feeding, housing, and insuring themselves. (wait till they learn about payroll taxes, that will make them fiscal conservatives in a hurry :-) Like the parent comment I can see how this works in the "old" world (make a company, product, sell it, rinse and repeat) but am curious to see if it can work in this other way.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    I don't see why would this be the "Stallman model of software", and not any of the other business models that don't involve selling users proprietary software or closed computers. In fact, rms himself has sold copies of Emacs in the past.
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      I called it that because I first heard about the model that one should pay for the creation of software but not its use in the "GNU Manifesto" [1] which Richard wrote. [1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
belorn 13y ago
> What happened to building something and selling it? Since they are already providing it for free to those who need it, and producing at as free software, selling it as a finished product is unlikely. > If you were truly concerned about online privacy, you'd build it anyway. Many people do altruistic work during their free time. crowdfunding means you can do the same work, but not be limited by what scraps of time that exist after work. The extremely few people in the world that would quit their job to do altruistic work is few. They are so few that almost every time it happens, it get posted here as news. If I made a poll, asking how many people here cared strongly about something in the world, I would get close to 99% hands that said yes. If I then asked how many of those people would agree to quit work to work altruistic on that subject, how many hands would I see?
- HerraBRE 13y ago
  I have actually been working on Mailpile "altruistically" for a while, but sorely missed the ability to dedicate myself to it full time. Thus the fundraiser.
  - nhangen 13y ago
    Totally get it, but why not share some of the risk with your supporters and meet them halfway? Asking for a full (decent) salary for two people for a year places all of the risk on your supporters and makes you look uninspired. Edit: I can't reply to child, so I'll do it here. It has nothing to do with a free ride. I don't want the product because the solution isn't right for me, but I would much prefer to pay a monthly fee for something than give a 'free ride,' as you call it, to a developer, in advance. I have no sympathy for the family argument, because I spent a year building a business on the side while I was employed full-time, so that when I quit my job, I could support my family. I believe there's something to be gained when the venture does not include a parachute.
    - FooBarWidget 13y ago
      I could not disagree less. Asking him to "meet supporters half way" makes it sound like you want a free ride. No offense. These are adult guys, who need to support themselves and possibly a family. The software is already open source. And you want them to take even more risk although the Mailpile author has given a lot of his time to the community already? You seriously think everybody would be better off if he risks the financial stability of his family?
gemma 13y ago
> I'm really turned off by this model of 'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated' Isn't that the whole premise behind a huge chunk of the projects on indiegogo and Kickstarter? "I want to make a cool thing, but I can't afford to quit my day job; please pay me up front"? I mean, I'm truly concerned about online privacy, but there are several barriers standing between me and my solution--not the least of which is the ability to eat and shield myself from the elements while crafting said solution. How is what these folks are asking any different from pitching a business plan to a VC? Sure, if you're going to a VC it's expected you'll actually have a business plan, but the function is the same: Convince people with resources that what you're doing is worthwhile and achievable, so they'll give their resources to you.
- morpher 13y ago
  Except with VC, the money is given with the expectation of an occasional huge return. With a crowd-funded open source project, one there is no possibility of getting anything more than a program you could get for free if others funded its development. This is clearly a very different situation.
  - gemma 13y ago
    But as a crowdfunder, I know that going in. Donation levels are clearly marked with what returns, if any, I can expect if the project is successful. "Worthwhile" to a VC means "big financial returns"; "worthwhile" to a crowdfunder means "this cool thing gets made". It's exactly the same concept; how it works out in practice is just mechanics.
yapcguy 13y ago
There is a thorny issue with kickstarting open-source projects like this. Suppose a third-party developer can make a major contribution to the project, to solve a nasty bug or add a technically challenging feature. How does that developer get paid? How is their contribution valued?
- weaksauce 13y ago
  It's not all that thorny really; you don't get any money from your third party patches. The indiegogo funding is for three man years of funded development work split between two men. It's opensource so you are free to help out if you want, just don't expect to be paid.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    I seem to recall a recent study that suggested paying some people explicitly for their open-source work (versus scratching-an-itch) had the effect of discouraging contributions from everyone else. Unfortunately my google-fu is too weak right now to find a reference.
- prostoalex 13y ago
  Mozilla is probably the best example of paid developers plus open source contributors. I've spoken to someone who worked there, and they agreed it was hard to keep the balance - if you start hiring all open-source contributors, then the remaining coders out in the open will get de-motivated, since they weren't offered a job.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
losvedir 13y ago
> but I'm really turned off by this model of 'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated Um, you mean software consulting? This model is beautiful. It's a bunch of email privacy advocates hiring a couple of skilled guys for a year to write the open source software we all wish existed. Seems fair to me. I'm not so entitled as to demand someone altruistically create this for me. And I explicitly _don't_ want them to make a business of it, because that changes the incentives completely.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
I hear what you're saying, and I was initially tempted to feel the same way, until I caught myself. I think your take on this is a function of our indoctrination into a particular form of capitalist mindset. We don't reward what's of value to society. We reward what can be sold. It's skewed. In addition, there is this idea that we should be cogs in the machine as kind of a de facto life goal. Get an education and go to work for someone else. Want to be an entrepreneur and do more? Well, it will cost you dearly. You either go see the gatekeepers with capital and hope they smile on you, only to end up back in the position where you are essentially working for someone again (your investors). Or, you bootstrap and work your ass off trying to support yourself/family while holding down a day job. BTW, like you, I did the latter. I think this is exactly why we don't have enough people using their talents to contribute something vs. just trying to make cash. Society should encourage this, and if crowdfunding can help more people to pursue their talents/dreams (especially for the good of society), then I am all for it. We need more of this.
- nhangen 13y ago
  You could be right, but I also wonder if option A, B, or C are great filters for weeding out those that are not ready/determined?
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    I don't know about that. I think we're having a discussion about how things are vs. how they could be. I mean, why is it the mindset that we must endure some arbitrary and unrelated pain in order to pursue our passions? Isn't this part of the problem? Is the need to make a living in a society that values only what is profitable really a meaningful test of one's mettle or determination? Am I more ready to pursue my business/project simply because I hustle and hold down a day job in order to eat? Or, am I simply distracted and spending only half my time pursuing my project, and therefore less efficient and less likely to complete it? Our tendency to believe that one must struggle in the prescribed way to prove one's self is a product of that same indoctrination. It's just how things are now. But, what if more people could make a living pursuing passions and interests that benefit society? I think they would be even more determined, because it is their own passion/cause/etc.
hugi 13y ago
Well, then don't participate. Geez.
SupremumLimit 13y ago
What's wrong with taking the risk out? If there are people willing to pay in advance, then it's a better solution for everybody. It could mean, for example, they can make a better product as they are not constrained by living on their savings. I find it bizarre that you find it "insulting".
inopinatus 13y ago
'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated' The closest model I'm familiar with to what they're doing is the FreeBSD Foundation, so this is more classic "pay us for OSS" than anything else. So I don't think this is a startup proposal. Unusual for HN I know, but given the plan I doubt they're tracking pirate metrics or blabbering about pivots. Which is sort of a pity because actually my problem isn't email (there is plenty of webmail I can deploy privately), my problem is group calendaring with multiple share/sync options (for which only Google Apps meets my requirements).
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated,' I'd say that the fundraiser, if it succeeds, is pretty good market validation.
wissler 13y ago
What a bizarre and nihilistic reaction. People will look at the app for themselves, decide whether it's a good value proposition for them or not. Nobody needs your bitching and moaning; if you don't like it, don't pay anything. You're just demoralizing people for the sake of it. I'm disgusted that yours is the top ranked comment.
- EricDeb 13y ago
  On one hand I agree with you, but playing devil's advocate - isn't this a discussion board, precisely the place where people would pay attention to such things? Applying your same logic, one could say "He's just expressing his opinion. If you don't like his comment, don't pay attention to it"
  - wissler 13y ago
    But on that logic, my opinion here would be fine too, right? So your answer "if you don't like my comment, don't pay attention" would apply to mine too. But on a deeper level, your response equivocates between two entirely different things, i.e. giving an opinion on a board vs. paying for something. My problem with the OP's opinion wasn't that he was giving his opinion, it was that his opinion was completely arbitrary. Why is it wrong to ask for donations of 1/2 salary for a year? Maybe the OP is jealous, but certainly he has no good reason. On the other hand, this mail application seems to have good grounds for existing, and their method of funding is just a simple use of the market -- people choosing to buy something if they want it. There's nothing arbitrary about it at all.
hpagey 13y ago
"pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated" This is exactly what they are doing, by crowd funding it. They are essentially testing the market.
chongli 13y ago
How is this any different from somebody drawing a salary while working at a charity? Not everyone is independently wealthy and able to just volunteer their time.
peonation 13y ago
Charging for a WordPress plugin? I'm really turned off by this model of charging money for open source software. If you were really concerned about crowdfunding you wouldn't charge a princely sum for a crowdfunding WordPress plugin built on open source software. What happened to making WordPress plugins for free. I found it insulting to ask me to pay more than I think it's worth. I suppose there's no problem with people who live in glass houses hurling stones around the Internets.

by nhangen 13y ago

tstrimple 13y ago

I see it as a form of customer development. The days of building something and hoping people like it when you're done should be over. If they can generate enough interest to support the development they know they are working on a product that people are interested in and will actually pay them for.

ptype 13y ago

Actually, I don't think they are looking to build a business out of this? From the web site: "This is the Mailpile business model. As long as members of our community are willing to fund development (we will ask you to renew your membership in a years' time), we will dedicate ourselves to Mailpile and build the secure web-mail client you want."

ChuckMcM 13y ago
This and the parent combined are the interesting bit. So this is exactly the Richard Stallman model of software. Pay people to develop it, don't charge anything for the software and give away the source. There is no economic incentive for the donors (they might get a mail program, might not, but they will never get their money back or a return on that money.) I suppose rms originally imagined that someone like the mailpile people would take the money they were given to create mailpile and give it to some other developer to create the tools they need. However, as we see in this campaign, all the money they get will go toward feeding, housing, and insuring themselves. (wait till they learn about payroll taxes, that will make them fiscal conservatives in a hurry :-) Like the parent comment I can see how this works in the "old" world (make a company, product, sell it, rinse and repeat) but am curious to see if it can work in this other way.
- icebraining 13y ago
  I don't see why would this be the "Stallman model of software", and not any of the other business models that don't involve selling users proprietary software or closed computers. In fact, rms himself has sold copies of Emacs in the past.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    I called it that because I first heard about the model that one should pay for the creation of software but not its use in the "GNU Manifesto" [1] which Richard wrote. [1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

belorn 13y ago

> What happened to building something and selling it? Since they are already providing it for free to those who need it, and producing at as free software, selling it as a finished product is unlikely. > If you were truly concerned about online privacy, you'd build it anyway. Many people do altruistic work during their free time. crowdfunding means you can do the same work, but not be limited by what scraps of time that exist after work. The extremely few people in the world that would quit their job to do altruistic work is few. They are so few that almost every time it happens, it get posted here as news. If I made a poll, asking how many people here cared strongly about something in the world, I would get close to 99% hands that said yes. If I then asked how many of those people would agree to quit work to work altruistic on that subject, how many hands would I see?

HerraBRE 13y ago
I have actually been working on Mailpile "altruistically" for a while, but sorely missed the ability to dedicate myself to it full time. Thus the fundraiser.
- nhangen 13y ago
  Totally get it, but why not share some of the risk with your supporters and meet them halfway? Asking for a full (decent) salary for two people for a year places all of the risk on your supporters and makes you look uninspired. Edit: I can't reply to child, so I'll do it here. It has nothing to do with a free ride. I don't want the product because the solution isn't right for me, but I would much prefer to pay a monthly fee for something than give a 'free ride,' as you call it, to a developer, in advance. I have no sympathy for the family argument, because I spent a year building a business on the side while I was employed full-time, so that when I quit my job, I could support my family. I believe there's something to be gained when the venture does not include a parachute.
  - FooBarWidget 13y ago
    I could not disagree less. Asking him to "meet supporters half way" makes it sound like you want a free ride. No offense. These are adult guys, who need to support themselves and possibly a family. The software is already open source. And you want them to take even more risk although the Mailpile author has given a lot of his time to the community already? You seriously think everybody would be better off if he risks the financial stability of his family?

gemma 13y ago

> I'm really turned off by this model of 'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated' Isn't that the whole premise behind a huge chunk of the projects on indiegogo and Kickstarter? "I want to make a cool thing, but I can't afford to quit my day job; please pay me up front"? I mean, I'm truly concerned about online privacy, but there are several barriers standing between me and my solution--not the least of which is the ability to eat and shield myself from the elements while crafting said solution. How is what these folks are asking any different from pitching a business plan to a VC? Sure, if you're going to a VC it's expected you'll actually have a business plan, but the function is the same: Convince people with resources that what you're doing is worthwhile and achievable, so they'll give their resources to you.

morpher 13y ago
Except with VC, the money is given with the expectation of an occasional huge return. With a crowd-funded open source project, one there is no possibility of getting anything more than a program you could get for free if others funded its development. This is clearly a very different situation.
- gemma 13y ago
  But as a crowdfunder, I know that going in. Donation levels are clearly marked with what returns, if any, I can expect if the project is successful. "Worthwhile" to a VC means "big financial returns"; "worthwhile" to a crowdfunder means "this cool thing gets made". It's exactly the same concept; how it works out in practice is just mechanics.

yapcguy 13y ago

There is a thorny issue with kickstarting open-source projects like this. Suppose a third-party developer can make a major contribution to the project, to solve a nasty bug or add a technically challenging feature. How does that developer get paid? How is their contribution valued?

weaksauce 13y ago
It's not all that thorny really; you don't get any money from your third party patches. The indiegogo funding is for three man years of funded development work split between two men. It's opensource so you are free to help out if you want, just don't expect to be paid.
- Amadou 13y ago
  I seem to recall a recent study that suggested paying some people explicitly for their open-source work (versus scratching-an-itch) had the effect of discouraging contributions from everyone else. Unfortunately my google-fu is too weak right now to find a reference.
prostoalex 13y ago
Mozilla is probably the best example of paid developers plus open source contributors. I've spoken to someone who worked there, and they agreed it was hard to keep the balance - if you start hiring all open-source contributors, then the remaining coders out in the open will get de-motivated, since they weren't offered a job.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

losvedir 13y ago

> but I'm really turned off by this model of 'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated Um, you mean software consulting? This model is beautiful. It's a bunch of email privacy advocates hiring a couple of skilled guys for a year to write the open source software we all wish existed. Seems fair to me. I'm not so entitled as to demand someone altruistically create this for me. And I explicitly _don't_ want them to make a business of it, because that changes the incentives completely.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

I hear what you're saying, and I was initially tempted to feel the same way, until I caught myself. I think your take on this is a function of our indoctrination into a particular form of capitalist mindset. We don't reward what's of value to society. We reward what can be sold. It's skewed. In addition, there is this idea that we should be cogs in the machine as kind of a de facto life goal. Get an education and go to work for someone else. Want to be an entrepreneur and do more? Well, it will cost you dearly. You either go see the gatekeepers with capital and hope they smile on you, only to end up back in the position where you are essentially working for someone again (your investors). Or, you bootstrap and work your ass off trying to support yourself/family while holding down a day job. BTW, like you, I did the latter. I think this is exactly why we don't have enough people using their talents to contribute something vs. just trying to make cash. Society should encourage this, and if crowdfunding can help more people to pursue their talents/dreams (especially for the good of society), then I am all for it. We need more of this.

nhangen 13y ago
You could be right, but I also wonder if option A, B, or C are great filters for weeding out those that are not ready/determined?
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  I don't know about that. I think we're having a discussion about how things are vs. how they could be. I mean, why is it the mindset that we must endure some arbitrary and unrelated pain in order to pursue our passions? Isn't this part of the problem? Is the need to make a living in a society that values only what is profitable really a meaningful test of one's mettle or determination? Am I more ready to pursue my business/project simply because I hustle and hold down a day job in order to eat? Or, am I simply distracted and spending only half my time pursuing my project, and therefore less efficient and less likely to complete it? Our tendency to believe that one must struggle in the prescribed way to prove one's self is a product of that same indoctrination. It's just how things are now. But, what if more people could make a living pursuing passions and interests that benefit society? I think they would be even more determined, because it is their own passion/cause/etc.

hugi 13y ago

Well, then don't participate. Geez.

SupremumLimit 13y ago

What's wrong with taking the risk out? If there are people willing to pay in advance, then it's a better solution for everybody. It could mean, for example, they can make a better product as they are not constrained by living on their savings. I find it bizarre that you find it "insulting".

inopinatus 13y ago

'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated' The closest model I'm familiar with to what they're doing is the FreeBSD Foundation, so this is more classic "pay us for OSS" than anything else. So I don't think this is a startup proposal. Unusual for HN I know, but given the plan I doubt they're tracking pirate metrics or blabbering about pivots. Which is sort of a pity because actually my problem isn't email (there is plenty of webmail I can deploy privately), my problem is group calendaring with multiple share/sync options (for which only Google Apps meets my requirements).

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated,' I'd say that the fundraiser, if it succeeds, is pretty good market validation.

wissler 13y ago

What a bizarre and nihilistic reaction. People will look at the app for themselves, decide whether it's a good value proposition for them or not. Nobody needs your bitching and moaning; if you don't like it, don't pay anything. You're just demoralizing people for the sake of it. I'm disgusted that yours is the top ranked comment.

EricDeb 13y ago
On one hand I agree with you, but playing devil's advocate - isn't this a discussion board, precisely the place where people would pay attention to such things? Applying your same logic, one could say "He's just expressing his opinion. If you don't like his comment, don't pay attention to it"
- wissler 13y ago
  But on that logic, my opinion here would be fine too, right? So your answer "if you don't like my comment, don't pay attention" would apply to mine too. But on a deeper level, your response equivocates between two entirely different things, i.e. giving an opinion on a board vs. paying for something. My problem with the OP's opinion wasn't that he was giving his opinion, it was that his opinion was completely arbitrary. Why is it wrong to ask for donations of 1/2 salary for a year? Maybe the OP is jealous, but certainly he has no good reason. On the other hand, this mail application seems to have good grounds for existing, and their method of funding is just a simple use of the market -- people choosing to buy something if they want it. There's nothing arbitrary about it at all.

hpagey 13y ago

"pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated" This is exactly what they are doing, by crowd funding it. They are essentially testing the market.

chongli 13y ago

How is this any different from somebody drawing a salary while working at a charity? Not everyone is independently wealthy and able to just volunteer their time.

peonation 13y ago

Charging for a WordPress plugin? I'm really turned off by this model of charging money for open source software. If you were really concerned about crowdfunding you wouldn't charge a princely sum for a crowdfunding WordPress plugin built on open source software. What happened to making WordPress plugins for free. I found it insulting to ask me to pay more than I think it's worth. I suppose there's no problem with people who live in glass houses hurling stones around the Internets.