Hacker News Reader

Comment by menssen | Hacker News Reader

Just a thought: I sort of agree with the fact that "pay to use git in a more advanced way" is a bit of a slap in the face to new users.

For me, what I absolutely love about this is the quick view of changes in a commit. My usual workflow for this is

1. git log --oneline --graph 2. Copy commit hash to clipboard 3. git show <paste commit hash>

or worse

3. git difftool <paste hash>^ <paste hash again>

which is clunky as hell, and made worse that difftool operates on a single file at a time.

GitUp is the first application that I don't hate using that solves this problem.

So my suggestion is: remove ALL the modification features from the free version, release it as a separate app called "GitUp Viewer" or something, and then sell the version that is actually a git client.

(Now it just sounds like I'm trying to avoid paying you for your work, but anyway.)

View on HN

Thanks for the kind feedback!

> So my suggestion is: remove ALL the modification features from the free version, release it as a separate app called "GitUp Viewer" or something, and then sell the version that is actually a git client.

Hmmm... but wouldn't that be exactly the same problem of "slapping users in the face", except now with 2 apps?

There aren't that many options to distribute desktop software:

1) freeware

2) free to use but ads or equivalent

3) paid upfront

4) paid with trial

5) paid with in-app purchase for some features

6) a free basic app and a pro app

#1 and #2 are not an option here and #6 is too much overhead and complicates the user proposition.

I don't see how #3 is not worse than #4 and #5. Not an option either anyway: I truly think people should be able to try before they buy for such a product.

#5 is all the trend on mobile and has been demonstrated to work (I've also done that on a couple desktop software and it seems OK). IMO it's the best of both worlds if done right: you get a free useful product as-is, but pay to get even more value of it.

If you think #5 is a "slap in the face of new users", wouldn't #4 also be that? :)

Here's a specific scenario:

I work at an organization with a lot of developers who first learned to use git through SourceTree. As far as they are concerned, "what SourceTree can do" is the entirety of how git works. While this is probably not great overall, I do think it is the experience of a lot of newer git users or people who aren't used to a CLI.

I also work at an organization where it is difficult (mostly just annoying I guess) to get software purchased. What I am afraid of is a bunch of people learning to use git through GitUp, and when I ask them to rebase something, they say "I can't because I don't have the pro version." Or even worse, some organization saying "we won't buy this for our developers because the free version does everything we think they need to do."

IMO, responsibly managing a git repository requires using a wide variety of the tools that git provides. Creating a situation which artificially categorizes those features into "essential" and "advanced" is bad for people learning git, because they probably should be learning those advanced things sooner rather than later.

I guess my vote would be (4) paid with trial, falling back to "view mode only" at end of trial.

Got it! Thanks for the detailed explanation.

The difference between #4 and #5 has to do with expectations.

When you download a free app, and then you discover that you need to pay for some features: That's a slap in the face.

When you download a trial of a paid app, and then you discover that you can get pretty far with the features of the free trial: That's a pleasant surprise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com