TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Open Source Apps (2013)

79 点作者 rimher大约 7 年前

12 条评论

sheetjs大约 7 年前
@patio11&#x27;s recent tweetstorm touched upon the core point<p>&gt; Most open source software is written by programmers who are full-time employed by companies which directly consume the software, at the explicit or implicit blessing of their employers. It is not charity work, any more than they charitably file taxes.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;patio11&#x2F;status&#x2F;936629310785437696" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;patio11&#x2F;status&#x2F;936629310785437696</a><p>The actual monetization, as the post explains, comes from related products and services. The presented Oracle analogy to IAP is fascinating:<p>&gt; Oracle offers a basic version of MySQL under a GPL license, with additional closed source – and expensive! – add-ons that better fit specific businesses’ needs. The allegory here is in-app purchase: a basic experience that gets the user invested in your product, with value-added options that are more attractive because of said investment
makecheck大约 7 年前
Apps don’t “want to be free”; customers want to <i>try before they buy</i> and there are not a lot of sane options presented for doing that in App Stores.<p>Why the <i>hell</i> isn’t there a simple “download now, pay if you keep more than 4 hours” kind of option, for example? Why no simple “upgrade to version 2.0 for 50% off” option? There are lots of common scenarios that <i>app stores should provide</i>, saving developers from having to hack special purchases into the product. Worse, stores basically don’t distinguish between <i>those</i> types of purchases and the many, many scams so after awhile potential buyers equate “any in-app purchase = scam” and that option disappears. And on top of it all, good, reputable apps can eventually be updated with scammy features that you never used to have.<p>Terrible app search engines. Terrible browsing with unchanging top-10 lists. Terrible monetization options. Endless garbage apps competing for space. Yet 30% comes off the top <i>unless</i> apps are free. So they’re free, and you get mostly ads.<p>What a complete waste of potential in the app ecosystem right now.
评论 #16550765 未加载
评论 #16558275 未加载
评论 #16550172 未加载
osteele大约 7 年前
&gt; What makes the software market so fascinating from an economic perspective is that the marginal cost of software is $0.<p>I see this claim a lot.<p>The marginal cost of software is actually its support cost﹡.<p>If some customers bought the product without a support contract, then the marginal cost of the good that is sold to those customers is the (non-zero) cost for support staff to categorize them and turn them away.<p>If <i>none</i> of the license includes support, then the vendor doesn&#x27;t need support staff or activities, and the marginal cost is indeed zero.<p>Only some software products — especially among commercial software products — don&#x27;t include <i>any</i> support at <i>any</i> price point.<p>﹡ Also marginal increases in distribution costs. Also costs that stem from marginally greater exposure to product liability issues and claims.
评论 #16550508 未加载
jeffreyrogers大约 7 年前
It&#x27;s not that apps want to be free, as much as apps that any reasonably competent programmer can make are driven down in price because many reasonably competent programmers do make them.<p>If you look at applications that require a large amount of domain expertise to build (CAD, audio&#x2F;video editing, etc.) they&#x27;re still expensive and have only recently begun to come down in price, in part because there are some free versions that, while noticeably inferior, are still useful to a substantial population of users.
acover大约 7 年前
Can a monthly subscription support a collection of open source apps?<p>Netflix style. Maybe give donors the option to vote on features. I am interested in testing if there is a market for this. I&#x27;ve started writing clone android apps without the ads and freemium.
评论 #16547592 未加载
评论 #16550522 未加载
评论 #16547289 未加载
评论 #16550538 未加载
nategri大约 7 年前
As a counterexample, Dark Sky is one of the few apps I pay for that has an endless array possible alternatives. The last time I looked all substitutes were ugly, clunky, bloated by ads, or all of the above. I pay so I don&#x27;t have deal with an inferior experience in a frequently used app. So, while the details of what an app accomplishes may be easy to replicate... maybe there&#x27;s always room for a premium experience?
评论 #16546504 未加载
jbob2000大约 7 年前
This applies to a very, very narrow segment of software. If I have to run a server, then yes, I do indeed have costs. And those costs go up the more popular my app gets.<p>And if the app gains any kind of serious pickup, I am going to need a client service team to handle all the bull crap people will be flinging my way. (Seriously, how many open source projects die because the maintainers get sick of managing the issue board?)
评论 #16546257 未加载
ppeetteerr大约 7 年前
There are too many counter-examples for this to be true:<p>- Microsoft has been charging for years for Office before getting into the recurring payment model. The reason they got into the recurring payment models is that most office software requires server support and server support is a recurring cost<p>- There may be future competition but let&#x27;s not forget that software still costs money to develop. ie. if an entrepreneur sees a market with 2-3 strong providers, they will hesitate to enter in direct competition. And why would they, their profit margins will be minute in comparison to the cost of building the software.<p>- The market may have software that is so good, that to catch up, competing players would have to spend years building the software (see point 2)<p>An example of this is Linux. It is free but it&#x27;s rarely used by non-IT professionals. One can argue that Windows is effectively free these days, but it still charges a license and the price of a laptop is still affected by having Windows installed.
评论 #16548933 未加载
kazinator大约 7 年前
&gt; <i>Because all PCs ran Windows on top of Intel chips, there was no differentiation, and prices dropped.</i><p>Umm, no. PCs ran Windows on top of <i>expensive</i> Intel chips with little competition.<p>The lack of differentiation caused the prices <i>of much of the other stuff that goes into a PC</i> to drop.<p>And ironically, that other crap, like network cards and whatever, going into PC&#x27;s, <i>is</i> differentiated.<p>That doesn&#x27;t help because it&#x27;s not differentiated in a way that the user cares about.<p>If processors were differentiated they way network cards, keyboards or mice are differentiated, it wouldn&#x27;t make a difference, except making PC&#x27;s even cheaper.
QasimK大约 7 年前
The same would apply to any digital content (zero-copy cost) which can be <i>substituted</i>. For example, why watch film A when film B is available more cheaply. Of course, it&#x27;s difficult to have substitutions for entertainment (for various reasons)... right now.<p>However, I do think the long-term trend here is downwards as well and I&#x27;d use music as an example. With streaming services, the cost of music is much lower compared to purchasing music. The streaming service acts as an aggregator for different content and has an incentive to pick the cheaper content (with the opposing force of consumers wanting particular things). But really, if the quality is high and the music chosen to be played is automatic (via recommendations) the underlying artist is less significant (in general - I know people can be <i>fans</i>).
mynick大约 7 年前
The marginal cost of software is not always zero. You may have cloud cost, support erc.
confounded大约 7 年前
(2013)
评论 #16546374 未加载