It's a very interesting idea - so much so I can't think of anything to compare it to directly. It's like github, but instead of contributing to a repository, you're contributing to a running operation?<p>One thing I'm unclear about: how do you handle disagreements/forking? As in, I want to add a feature I need, but can't get it greenlit, can I easily run the app elsewhere?<p>Anyway, I'm interested to see how it turns out. Valve's structure is based on similar principles, so there's definitely something there.<p><a href="http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-do-we-need-corporations-for-and-how-does-valves-management-structure-fit-into-todays-corporate-world/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-d...</a>
Its a great idea - but the terms are horrible. From my understanding Assembly made own the rights to the software and a pretty big stake in application.<p>The article talks about forking code, contributing to open source but goes directly against it.<p><a href="https://assemblymade.com/tos" rel="nofollow">https://assemblymade.com/tos</a>
I spoke at length with these guys last night. My takeaway is that this isn't something I personally would get involved in.<p>First and foremost because I have a preference for starting my own projects independently as opposed to signing on with Assembly; for a number of reasons, chief among them is arguably personal preference and perhaps a bit of an entrepreneurial streak. I also think there's a potentiality, as open source continues to grow in popularity, for corporate-funded projects to be more alluring given that they provide a steady paycheck and benefits if you work for the company. For example, I work on an open source project which was initially an internal project developed for my employer and later released to the public. Today we maintain the codebase and in a sense I am paid to do that particular bit of open source work (I don't exclusively work on that, of course). Maybe this isn't a fair comparison, but I wouldn't give up my day job, which affords some of the benefits Assembly is ostensibly offering (get paid to do open source), or exchange the free time I spend on my own projects for this kind of stake sharing in a project or product...at least not yet.<p>On the other hand, this might be exactly what some people are looking to do in their free time: maybe you don't want to start your own company or you want to spend time in open source but prefer to get paid for it and your employer has no intention of helping you scratch that itch. However, given that last comment in particular, I really wonder if money is the proper motivating factor for so much of what the community has come to mean? Certainly the prestige of working on a popular or important project has historically been far more valuable than monetary compensation (and can even lead to monetary compensation these days, if a savvy employer is involved and happens to notice you're a Linux kernel committer or some such).<p>It's an interesting idea, that I'm sure of and I'm wishing these guys the best of luck with it! While I may not be their target audience, it does seem like there could be something here. So here's to hoping it develops into something awesome.
These are all problems (email client, better support app, better mailing list) many of us on HN fantasise about but each has a whole bunch of schleps associated with it. The motivation to jump through all the loops is tempered by pragmatism that sets in after the first few hours.<p>This is an interesting way of attacking the problem. Some thoughts:<p>1. Community will be attracted / restricted by the platform.<p>2. There is too much fatigue out there, as there are so many such "ideas" competing for mind-space.<p>3. SAAS based products for small businesses, freelancers has become a kind of a cottage industry with limited scalability. I am doubtful how much revenue this can generate.
Can a non-technical person contribute and idea and watch other people build it if it gets chosen?<p>Is this an "idea sourcing" engine or more "crowdsourcing developers without needing to join a full startup"?
If Support-Foo is going to be open source, and as per its description "<i>Instead of charging per-seat, it would charge by volume of support.</i>", then why does the Enterprise option say "<i>1 year license</i> to run behind the firewall with unlimited support and agents" ?<p>Is it open-source, and you need a license to run it behind a firewall?