4 ms·

If you are bootstrapped it is a huge barrier. And Meme is not that bad. There are others that are far worse. I once tried using Modeller purely for hobby proj

by bbgm 11y ago

If you are bootstrapped it is a huge barrier. And Meme is not that bad. There are others that are far worse. I once tried using Modeller purely for hobby projects (science was not even my day job) but was denied. That's a problem.

dalke 11y ago
Not all business models are economically viable, and others are not obligated to make it easy to support your choice of a bootstrap business model. My experience is that people who get a piece of software, even if for free, often want some support. If you don't give them support, some will complain. A company may decide that it's easier to deal with complaints about the lack of a free version for hobbyists than to deal with complaints about a user not getting sufficient (unpaid) support.
- shiggerino 11y ago
  That's news to me, most companies seem to understand full well that if they want support on a free program they have to pay for it.
  - dalke 11y ago
    bbgm made two comments; one about a company under bootstrap, the other about "using Modeller purely for hobby projects". My first paragraph was a response to the first comment. My second paragraph was about the second.
    - shiggerino 11y ago
      Oh, you were talking about the hobbyists? That's easy. Tell them to RTFM, and if something doesn't work, have them submit a patch. That's not a heavy burden.
      - dalke 11y ago
        There are very few people who do bioinformatics as a hobby. The term "hobbyist" generally refers to people who are in a related field and want to dabble with a different set of tools, with no firm intention to do serious research in that field. However, these hobbyists tend to be experts in their (related) field, and talk with actual customers or potential customers of the company. Word of mouth is important, and if the company tell someone to RTFM and submit a patch, then this may lead to a bad vibe. Or it might not. But it's easier to say "only paying customers" and have no burden than to take on even the light burden of responding to non-paying users. Also, some hobbyists will use their "hobby" status to do research on the cheap. (For a related example, some professors have their own company, doing work related to their research, and use their educational status to get software that ends up being used for work that helps the company.) They might, for example, have an idea that they want to "play around with", which might be competitive with the product. It's not a serious idea, "just a hobby", but they are curious to see if it's something interesting, so get a copy of the software, and use that to judge if the idea should be investigated more seriously. Or start a competitive company. Or publish a paper where they demonstrate that when the tool is used poorly, by someone who doesn't the tool, then it produces poor results. Is that really a hobby, or is it self-delusion used to avoid committing oneself to a project? I can't tell, and neither can a company. A policy of "paying customers only" makes it easy to decide. There are certainly other solutions, but is there a concrete advantage to taking on that burden, no matter how light?

by bbgm 11y ago

dalke 11y ago

Not all business models are economically viable, and others are not obligated to make it easy to support your choice of a bootstrap business model. My experience is that people who get a piece of software, even if for free, often want some support. If you don't give them support, some will complain. A company may decide that it's easier to deal with complaints about the lack of a free version for hobbyists than to deal with complaints about a user not getting sufficient (unpaid) support.

shiggerino 11y ago
That's news to me, most companies seem to understand full well that if they want support on a free program they have to pay for it.
- dalke 11y ago
  bbgm made two comments; one about a company under bootstrap, the other about "using Modeller purely for hobby projects". My first paragraph was a response to the first comment. My second paragraph was about the second.
  - shiggerino 11y ago
    Oh, you were talking about the hobbyists? That's easy. Tell them to RTFM, and if something doesn't work, have them submit a patch. That's not a heavy burden.
    - dalke 11y ago
      There are very few people who do bioinformatics as a hobby. The term "hobbyist" generally refers to people who are in a related field and want to dabble with a different set of tools, with no firm intention to do serious research in that field. However, these hobbyists tend to be experts in their (related) field, and talk with actual customers or potential customers of the company. Word of mouth is important, and if the company tell someone to RTFM and submit a patch, then this may lead to a bad vibe. Or it might not. But it's easier to say "only paying customers" and have no burden than to take on even the light burden of responding to non-paying users. Also, some hobbyists will use their "hobby" status to do research on the cheap. (For a related example, some professors have their own company, doing work related to their research, and use their educational status to get software that ends up being used for work that helps the company.) They might, for example, have an idea that they want to "play around with", which might be competitive with the product. It's not a serious idea, "just a hobby", but they are curious to see if it's something interesting, so get a copy of the software, and use that to judge if the idea should be investigated more seriously. Or start a competitive company. Or publish a paper where they demonstrate that when the tool is used poorly, by someone who doesn't the tool, then it produces poor results. Is that really a hobby, or is it self-delusion used to avoid committing oneself to a project? I can't tell, and neither can a company. A policy of "paying customers only" makes it easy to decide. There are certainly other solutions, but is there a concrete advantage to taking on that burden, no matter how light?