Hacker News Reader

Comment by nubela | Hacker News Reader

Why don't you include the payment WITHIN the system? I wouldn't pay before I try eOS, it is only if I stick and use it, will I consider paying.

View on HN

I'd go further and say that opensource distributions should all have a standard customizable package that will "nag" users after a certain amount of hours from first boot. The package could spring a pop-up if X is running, or send an email to root@ (or whatever the "admin" user is). If done well, I bet a lot of users wouldn't mind dropping $5 or $10 -- probably more than you get by doing the occasional donation drive.

In fact, some good soul could get together the main actors (Debian, Ubuntu, Arch) and set up a shared infrastructure that will provide a common flow for this revenue stream (payment UI, merchant accounts etc), sharing fixed costs.

... just like all those people who paid for WinZip and mIRC?

Before Microsoft included decent compression facilities in Windows, a lot of people did in fact pay for WinZip. I bet some still do, considering it's still on sale -- something that cannot be said for most Linux distributions.

I highly doubt many people were paying for WinZip or WinRAR, given that they're a running gag in the IT sector (just like paying for Total Commander). But I'd love to see data on it, if anyone has some.

  Revenues of WinZip Computing (WinZip)
  2003 - $25,259,000
  2004 - $24,928,000
  2005 - $22,700,000

(from Corel's IPO filings, http://blog.goodsol.com/2006/04/winzip_and_jasc.html)

Thanks!

I honestly am very surprised by this. Does WinZip have any other potential revenue source that could explain this, or is it definitely from WinZip the software?

EDIT Joel's post above hints about enterprise licenses. That changes the equation a bit - enterprises have to pay, and it's very easy to get that money from them.

As reported here http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?biz.5.331272.2... :

Revenues of WinZip Computing (WinZip)

2003 - $25,259,000

2004 - $24,928,000

2005 - $22,700,000

Peanuts?

Thanks for that particular link, it highlights possible explanation - "Never subestimate the power of enterprise licenses". So it's entirely possible that almost no user buys it, but they get their money from enterprises. I'd love to see a breakdown if one's available.

Somebody in the thread says he bought it. My experience is that a lot of SMEs and professionals did buy it. The price was so low, and at one point its features were really essential.

Anecdotal data...

http://www.reddit.com/r/PaidForWinRAR

;-)

This will alienate developers that don't want to work on a distro that is a cash grab.

Only developers that don't care about stealing other developers work.

I do contribute to projects I use, as I know how hard it is to live from open source.

I don't think that's a very good idea usability wise. I certainly don't like being interrupted during my work with requests for donations.

The devil is in the details... if done well, you wouldn't be interrupted. Maybe springing it at login, or waking, or at some other time when a surprise might be more welcome.

(Also, I hate the word "donation" tbh. It communicates a sense of hopelessness, of misery, that is just sad IMHO.)

For me it communicates a sense of giving someone money because I believe in them and want to support them. OTOH, such nagging communicates the sense of desperation, that the vendor is literally begging for money.

To me it communicates unwillingness to assume responsibility of selling something (ensure it actually works, refunds, etc)

That's a very, very bad idea. It's concepts like this that make computing suck so hard (cf. yesterday's discussion about web being broken). A nagging pop-up is literally saying "fuck you" to your users. Sure, it may work in some cases from financial perspective (though probably not here, just like people switch from WinRAR to 7zip mostly because the latter doesn't nag), but it is crapping on your users.

Software vendors should be honest. You want me to pay you? Say it up-front. You offer me a free version? Don't be surprised me, and most of others, are going to take it. Want to make the free version limited? Say it up-front, but don't beg for money.

> A nagging pop-up is literally saying "fuck you" to your users.

Does any charity worker asking for money "literally" say "fuck you" to people? Honestly, I can't see your point. If done well, asking for donation does not have to be annoying.

> just like people switch from WinRAR to 7zip mostly because the latter doesn't nag

7Zip is free opensource; WinZip is closed-source time-limited shareware which nags once the time limit is reached. Regardless of nagging, users were supposed to pay for Winzip after a certain date from installation. This is why most people with advanced zipping requirements switched, once 7Zip became robust enough. (Regular Joes just stopped using either once Windows got good enough at dealing with zipped files.)

> You want me to pay you? Say it up-front.

Sorry, I personally have the opposite attitude. Why should I pay you if I don't even know whether your product actually works to my satisfaction? Once I'm happy with it, and you politely remind me that such lovely products don't grow on trees, I'm much more inclined to pay.

> Does any charity worker asking for money "literally" say "fuck you" to people? Honestly, I can't see your point. If done well, asking for donation does not have to be annoying.

If done well. In terms of charity, I find that the "worthiness" of charity is mostly inversely proportional to the amount of effort they spend on direct marketing (I often see the same about businesses, btw.). If you're going to nag me with ads or stop on the street and ask for money while being obnoxious about it (certain environmental organization comes to mind), you can bet I'll be blacklisting your charity from the group I'm even considering to support.

I like to pay. I hate being tricked, guilt-tripped or forced into paying.

> Why should I pay you if I don't even know whether your product actually works to my satisfaction? Once I'm happy with it, and you politely remind me that such lovely products don't grow on trees, I'm much more inclined to pay.

Fine, but if you expect me to pay for it eventually, apart from politely reminding me, please keep saying up-front that you expect to be paid.

Maybe what I'm really afraid here is the slippery slope - once you establish that it's ok to "remind people to pay" in FLOSS products, it will slowly creep up to the point of being annoying, and I'd hate to see that happen.

Please think before you type. You're describing the universally hated nag for payment ever so "popular" in mobile apps. Hell, the other week when paid skyrim mods were a hot topic, some dev tried to do it in one of his free Skyrim addons and he got universally hated, flamed and hanged for it. I can't even begin to describe how negative the reaction was.

It baffles me people like you can actually still think things like these are a good idea. I'm all for getting FOSS devs paid, but your post essentially says "why don't they just preinstall some software from advertising companies that will pay them for it".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com