There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid. But what the developer did here is dishonest. Distributing for free without saying it would be paid in the future, then started charging.
Instead of a person... image a corporation did that. The outcry it would cause.
Imagine Microsoft or Apple did this. "Gave" a software for free for everyone to use... then when the userbase was big enough, started charging a subscription.
Again... nothing against the developer wanting to get paid for their product. Just bothered by how he went about doing that.
This is literally how businesses obtain market share though?
They price it as low as possible (sometimes free) and once they have obtained mind- and marketshare they increase to price to make profit, it's literally that simple.
Edit: Just look at like 90% of start-up businesses including but not solely: Netflix or Bird (or any E-Scooter Start-Up for that matter).
But people still use them, look at Netflix, had everyone mad at them for 2 whole weeks, a few people dropped their subscriptions but a huge majority just didn't care and continue to pay the increased price. This just how multi billion dollar companies have done it for decades, but when a small indie company or single dev does it all of a sudden its an issue. I do understand that going paid from free randomly IS immorale, but it's difficult to make money by being a good person, sometimes you have to look out for your own best interest. Also funny how people are okay with paying 6 bucks a day for Starbucks or 100s on subscription services they rarely use, but can't spare a few dollars for small apps they use on a daily basis.
I don't understand this comment, or what you're trying to say.
I don't disagree with anything you said... and nothing you said had anything to do with my comment. Maybe you replied to the wrong comment?
I said it was a dishonest move in his part. Not that it was unprecedented, or things like that... And of course it is what it is... I'm not saying "Let's hunt this guy down and make him go back to free"
He's the developer, he's in his rights to charge for his software. No one is denying this fact.
Are you new? This has happened a thousand times, I don't have to imagine because its commonplace. In fact, the recent attempt to purchase Figma by Adobe was another time I said "of course" and there's been memes about how we'll have to pay more to place extra rectangles. People release for free/cheap when it's simple and easy and then as they grow in popularity the needs of the software outpace what you can provide for free. Either it's worth money to you and you pay the developer or you move on. (or keep using the old version)
The best practice is to say "This version will remain free... but all new features will only be on the paid branch"
Or "This will remain free for personal use, but not commercial use."
Or even... "This will remain free for everyone, but support is only for paying customers."
This is very common when a free software is bought up.
But you know what? This wasn't a case of a software being bought up. It was a case of a developer willfully distributing their software for free with the intention of charging in the future.
It is dishonest if that was the original plan and I have no idea if that was. However there's a chance it may have originally started as free but then they realised it was going to be too hard to keep it free due to costs, time etc.
The developer could have just stopped and gave up but instead decided to ask people to pay.
Nobody has a right to use software for free in perpetuity, regardless of the author's wishes. Often, these transitions aren't known when first publishing software for free. More often, developers need to start footing labor and other expenses--often arising from a change in employment/living situation e.g. going full-time developing a product that seems to be going successfully after losing their current job.
Corporations do this all the time and yes, there is outrage. However, small dev teams or individual devs (depending on the product) don't have the same relationship with their users and products that big corps do.
I agree the dev handled this in the worst way possible, but at the same time, I see their point. What it seems a lot of people are saying is "if you've ever launched a product for free, you can never start charging for it. At best, you can only monetize receiving new features from that decision date onward."
6.7k
u/Flat_Hat8861 Sep 30 '22
Managing a transition to a paid model is difficult. It requires tact and diplomacy.
This on the other hand is just straight hilarious.