by robalni on 7/26/23, 10:47 AM with 532 comments
by TaylorAlexander on 7/26/23, 7:33 PM
If we can find a way to make sure every person has what they need to thrive regardless of their income, programmers can open source all of their software and we can enable the maximum value creation possible. Other engineers like those that design commodities like dishwashers and cars or important manufacturing or medical equipment can also open source their designs so that repair costs are low and innovative improvements are easy to apply. I genuinely believe this would result in a steeper and more rapid innovation curve as well as a better world for all, than a world where we try to monetize things which have zero marginal cost to reproduce.
by chadash on 7/26/23, 1:28 PM
I know people like to rail against it, but I actually like the SAAS model. It keeps incentives aligned. It used to be that I might shell out $200 for a piece of productivity software. Now, I might pay $10 a month instead. The thing is that under the old model, a company was incentivized by make a sale but retention didn’t matter. Now, a sale is almost worthless, but retention is very valuable. Yes, over time I will pay much more with SAAS, but I also have companies that are incentivized to keep the software working. It doesn’t matter that I have a perpetual license on accounting software I bought in 2005… it no longer functions with my operating system anyway. SAAS helps solve this problem.
by samsquire on 7/26/23, 1:00 PM
There's thankless work such as programming language development, operating systems (Linux), databases and Linux distributions that are profoundly valuable. Even just wrangling them from a devops perspective is painful though.
I've never paid for any of the work that went into Ubuntu, Python or Java (I use Corretto) or MySQL or C.
I kind of want a community of people that help run a sideproject PaaS and solve the things I would prefer not to work on. Servers that are up-to-date and patched and scalable and robust.
I use OmniNotes on my Android phone, I use FreeFileSync, Typora (paid software), IntelliJ Community.
What's a price that you would pay pay for your open source software?
If it was like Spotify, spotify is like $9.99 a month and apparently 210 million susbcribers according to Bing search "spotify number of subscribers". That's a fair amount of people's living costs to pay for.
by a254613e on 7/26/23, 12:54 PM
"Pay to download or for other services: Not worth it; users can find the software somewhere else and they don't need your other services."
So users won't pay a one-time fee, but instead they will pay a subscription to get that one software they need? They won't "find the software somewhere else" if it's behind a subscription, but will do so if it's behind a single payment?
by andy99 on 7/26/23, 1:29 PM
by ajkjk on 7/26/23, 7:57 PM
Sorta like expanding the mobile phone experience to encompass your whole internet experience, so you can choose what services you use, and where they're hosted, and those two things are fundamentally decoupled.
One such app could be a sort of 'charge card' for websites, which would pay them pennies, or larger tips if you like, instead of having to see ads.
Another might be a connection to a search engine which allows you to tailor _your_ search experience instead of it being optimized in e.g. Google's interests with all the commercial stuff at the top.
by andruby on 7/26/23, 3:59 PM
If I'm a developer and get to chose what to charge, that means I can ask people for $0.01, and they would get access to everything from all developers of this "platform"?
The example on [0] where a developer pays credits when they get a subscriber is confusing. Should Devs "top up" somehow?
by gizmo on 7/26/23, 1:07 PM
Software is easier to produce, sell, and distribute than any physical product. You don't have to worry about warehouses filled with unsold inventory. You don't have to worry about quality control and returns. It still blows my mind how much easier it is to run a business that deals with bytes instead of atoms. The OP talks about software having no copy protection, but Amazon sells DVD players and cordless drills for $30. Imagine for a second how hard it is to compete with that. Competing with Google or Microsoft or some startup is a walk in the park in comparison.
In software the hard part is making an excellent product. And let's face it, that's where most people fail. It has nothing to do with monetization.
by abmackenzie on 7/26/23, 1:28 PM
What's the incentive for a developer to sign up to this then, if they don't get a share of your subscription when you use their service? Isn't this a bit like asking Disney+ to give all Netflix subscribers access with no compensation?
by Brian_K_White on 7/26/23, 1:05 PM
This isn't it.
I donate a little to the EFF, monthly automatic, and a few other things irregularly as I feel particular gratitude. It leaves a million people unaccounted for, but all you can do today is pick a few things that matter to you and let others get the others.
And/or pay back/forward by contributing a little work of your own to the commons which I also do, but you can't expect most to do that, and I don't claim mine is valuable. Actually come to think of that, the reason I work on the things I work on is mostly because I just want to, so maybe most of those million are fine and there's no problem. But come to me with any kind of demand, well, I guess that's when paying enters the chat.
by preommr on 7/26/23, 1:39 PM
Is this like Kindle unlimited where someone pays a single subscription and gets access to all content providers on the platform (in this case content is software), where creators get a proportion of the subscription fee based on how much a user used an app? So e.g. 10$ per month, I use FooReader 90% of the time, so they get 9$.
Idk, even if I am not getting the details, I don't think that any collective approach to app is going to work. Unlike with other industries like movies or music, products in software are very different from each other and is consumed in a variety of ways (library vs end-user app) that have a lot of complicated nuance (in terms of licensing and company goals).
by leetrout on 7/26/23, 12:40 PM
by rco8786 on 7/26/23, 1:37 PM
> Pay to download or for other services: Not worth it; users can find the software somewhere else and they don't need your other services.
I also reject this premise. My evidence being the trillions of dollars spent annually on software and other services.
by grodes on 7/26/23, 12:59 PM
by ozim on 7/26/23, 2:33 PM
People should not pay for software - average Joe should have all kinds of software basically free.
Now you ask "who should pay for development", corporations, companies or foundations where people still could donate but would not have to. Where corporations and companies pay salaries and provide end users with services.
Solo devs should not write and maintain anything without getting paid.
Yes it is "corporate dystopia" but on the other hand when I see all kinds of rants or horror stories from OSS maintainers and companies that don't want to contribute it seems only reasonable way. Corporation/Company/Foundation pay salaries for devs and provide people with software while charging for services like keeping data or any other actual services that can be connected to software they provide or in case of foundations by donations.
by robalni on 7/26/23, 10:47 AM
by Otek on 7/26/23, 1:06 PM
by transformi on 7/26/23, 12:42 PM
by Pxtl on 7/26/23, 2:59 PM
Imho, the "just buy it" or "patreon to access the development discord/forum/whatever for OSS" seem like the best approaches. Like, I'm in Mastodon's patreon, and I'm happy to buy software. And while it may sting, I'm okay with "major release = new version buy it again". Not fond fond of installed local non-cloud software in the SAAS business model.
by dbrueck on 7/26/23, 9:11 PM
IMO the most sensical low level* economic model for digital things would be one where you pay a really tiny amount every time you derive value from something. A fraction of a penny each time you play a song, each time you edit an image in some software, each time you visit a website.
There are a boatload of obstacles to getting to a model like this, but as a thought exercise it's really interesting to consider an alternate universe where this model got established instead of, say, everything being ad-based. Not only would it provide a model for monetizing software, it would also for example completely reframe DRM (making it both far more ubiquitous but also far less antagonizing to the user, since it would be aligned with what the user is trying to do instead of being at odds with it).
* The idea being that this low level economic would exist but for practical reasons (like overcoming human psychology) you might need to overlay a higher level model like a monthly "unlimited consumption" subscription or tax.
by the_lonely_road on 7/26/23, 12:48 PM
I read through your landing page and your how-it-works page and I am still...confused. That it ends on a hand wavey "we haven't solved this part yet" statement does not inspire confidence.
As best I can tell you are going to take a lot of open software and gatekeep it behind a paywall but each user only has to pay once...to someone...and then they can access all of the software behind that gate. So you are trying to make an ecosystem of software that can only be accessed by people that have paid some money at least once?
by coxley on 7/26/23, 6:22 PM
> Sorry, there are no developers to subscribe to currently.
If you actually want adoption, more needs done than posting the thing you built and suggesting people use it. Building effective, self-sufficient marketplaces is tough. Benefit has to be seen on both sides from the get-go.
by Joel_Mckay on 7/26/23, 7:34 PM
Android -> Sales funnel for app store/services, and consumer profiling
MacOS -> Sales funnel for app store/services, and consumer profiling
Windows 11 -> Sales funnel for app store/services, and consumer profiling
Ubuntu -> Sales funnel for app store/services, and consumer profiling
Most people conflate information appliances with general purpose computing.
It is a shame 98% of the market went this route... You still pay, but are just unaware how you are being monetized. =)
by picadores on 7/26/23, 2:51 PM
The idea has problems though. How to pay for background ("invisble" layers). How to prevetn "hyper transparent citizens". Etc.
by neerajdotname2 on 7/26/23, 7:48 PM
by TheMode on 7/26/23, 3:09 PM
Software is stupidly simple to distribute, but for some reason one of the hardest to keep. Obviously if we cannot use any software of the past, we are stuck with developers having to maintain old or new solutions.
by jansommer on 7/26/23, 4:25 PM
If users can find the software elsewhere, then it must be cheaper or better if they don't want to use yours. If this is about pirating, then it's just a matter of time before they buy, unless the ransom for decrypting their personal files bankrupts them.
Please, no more subscriptions.
by indymike on 7/26/23, 6:36 PM
by blueyes on 7/26/23, 3:57 PM
by majestic5762 on 7/26/23, 6:16 PM
by pabs3 on 7/27/23, 6:06 AM
by Otek on 7/26/23, 1:02 PM
by frithsun on 7/26/23, 3:20 PM
by grishka on 7/26/23, 2:12 PM
by rchaud on 7/26/23, 2:47 PM
Sketch App - $99 once, $99/yr if you want upgrades (I did not)
Wordpress model - Core is FOSS, money is made with custom plug-ins that can be priced freely.
by islammidov on 7/26/23, 2:49 PM
by thorin on 7/26/23, 1:37 PM
by tomrod on 7/26/23, 2:44 PM
by faangiq on 7/26/23, 10:40 PM
by meatjuice on 7/26/23, 1:46 PM
by kapitanjakc on 7/26/23, 7:16 PM
Problem is with quality and adaptation.
by intrasight on 7/26/23, 2:38 PM
by deafpolygon on 7/26/23, 4:56 PM
by michaelmrose on 7/26/23, 8:54 PM
by kykeonaut on 7/26/23, 12:53 PM
by ericls on 7/26/23, 2:30 PM
by charlieyu1 on 7/26/23, 7:57 PM
by BSEdlMMldESB on 7/26/23, 11:59 PM
the idea of "property" (ownership) which is the cornerstone of the whole of civilization breaks down when applied to digital goods.
by dboreham on 7/26/23, 4:16 PM
by haunter on 7/26/23, 4:20 PM
by simonbarker87 on 7/26/23, 4:39 PM
by rzwitserloot on 7/26/23, 2:56 PM
Optional extras like 'downloads or other resources' are presumably digital and therefore do not solve the problem - folks can still pirate it. If that's not the point, then it is a donation, in the simplified parlance of the first paragraph of 1sub.dev.
And this all from a company/effort that has such lofty goals that the html title of the page is 'a world where people pay for software'.
This (how do you monetize software development / how do we e.g. let FOSS developers capture more than the current 0.0000000001% of the value they create) is an incredibly difficult problem and this effort sounds like some naive newbie took 5 seconds to think about it and thought: Yeah let's fix things!
At the risk of sounding like a crotchety old fart: Hoo boy if it was that simple, it'd have been solved already.
Alternative plans that work a lot better:
* The NPM ecosystem has a ton of software-as-a-service offerings, e.g. where you can use their site to serve as online tool to e.g. make documentation, to have their site host that documentation, etc. I hate this model (you get nickel-and-dimed and both companies and open source developers alike don't usually like having 50 downstream service providers who, if they go down or have issues, require you having to explain to _your_ customers what's going wrong), but it solves the problems this site names (you can't pirate this, and you get something of value for your money in return).
* Tidelift tries to provide security assurances and support: The payers don't just 'donate', they pay to just be done with the security issues with FOSS dependencies: Tidelift gives you software that scans all your dev work for all your deps and which versions you are on, and tidelift ensures not just that there are no major security holes in those deps, but also that the authors of those deps have made some basic promises about maintaining it in trade for real consideration (namely: money). Github sponsors and the like are more or less barking up the same tree. These setups also solve an unstated problem 1sub.dev tries to solve, which is: You tend to use _a lot_ of software; if you have, say, 600 dependencies (not crazy in this modern age of software dev), and you want to individually set up a 'deal' with all of em, one person has a full time job as they will have to renew over 2 contracts __every working day__ assuming all your subscriptions are yearly.
* Microsoft and co do it as a package deal: You pay one fee for everything they offer and aggressively legally chase down anybody that pirates.
* patreon and co grease the wheels of the donation flow by making it simpler and allowing developers to give something that's hard to pirate: T-shirts and stickers, mentions in the 'about...' page and so on.
* Some developers of FOSS, as well as _many_ commercial outfits, will accept money in trade for priority support.
All of these models have issues. But at least they actually aim to solve the problems. This attempt doesn't even begin to tackle the actual issues, unless I'm missing something.
As a 1million+ user FOSS developer who maintains the library primarily based on privilege (I have enough income to work for the roughly minimum wage I currently get for it, though I could have earned vastly more if I worked for a commercial entity for those hours) - I'm aware that this is not a good situation, that you need to sort out your finances separately just to be a good FOSS author. But, I don't see how 1sub.dev is going to add much compared to what's already there (patreon, github sponsors, FOSS aggregators like apache and eclipse foundation, tidelift, etc).
by Knee_Pain on 7/26/23, 1:36 PM
We pay for software almost exclusively through digital means, but the fees are too damn high.
Imagine if transaction fees were zero.
Imagine if a piece of software you used costed 10 cents per months. Or someone's patreon or github sponsor was 5 cents per month.
And then imagine if starting and stopping the subscription was intuitive and super easy with any digital payment method you happened to use.
I could see the flood gates open and now developers who got basically nothing will get a ton of small contributions that together would make up quite a nice lump sum every month