One of the side effects of the recent trend of \"Lean\" startups, and the app st
ID: 659576 • Letter: O
Question
One of the side effects of the recent trend of "Lean" startups, and the app store era, is that consumers are more acclimatised to paying small prices for small games / products.
Eg.:
Online SAAS that charges ~$5 / month (the basecamp style of product)
Games which are short, fun, and cheap ($0.99 from the app store
This market has been defined by "doing one thing well, and charging people for it." DHH of Rails / 37 Signals fame argues that if your website isn't going to make money, don't bother making it.
Why doesn't the same rule apply to frameworks?
There are lots of software framework projects out there - many which are mature and feature-rich, which offer developers significant value, yet there doesn't seem to be a market or culture of paying for these.
It seems that the projects which do charge money are often things like UI component toolsets, and are often marginalized in favour of free alternatives.
Why is this?
Surely programmers / businesses see the value in contributing back to projects such as Ruby, Rails, Hibernate, Spring, Ant, Groovy, Gradle, (the list goes on).
I'm not suggesting that these frameworks should start charging for anyone who wants to use them, but that there must be a meaningful business model that would allow the developers to earn money from the time they invest developing the framework.
Any thoughts as to why this model hasn't emerged / succeeded?
Explanation / Answer
There is absolutely an ethic of trading value-for-value in free/open-source software.
In most of the economy, we trade money-for-product or money-for-service. It's very convenient to do so. Indeed, we do so in the commercial software part of the economy.
But we don't generally trade money-for-friendship or money-for-romance. We trade friendship-for-friendship and romance-for-romance.
Likewise, in free/open-source software, the ethic is to repay DHH and the contributors to Rails by: reporting bugs for, contributing patches for, writing/updating/fixing the documentation for, and evangelizing Ruby, Rails, Linux, and all of the free/open-source software projects in general. That is how we trade value-for-value.
Asking why "this model [charging money for frameworks] hasn't emerged / succeeded" is akin to asking why this same model hasn't emerged / succeeded when it comes to friendships or romance. Someone who is offering friendship doesn't want money - he wants friendship in return. Likewise romance. Likewise, in many cases, software.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.