I think the issues you're describing are all modern internet software issues. I'd guess you're possibly a bit younger than me, or maybe forgotten how software worked before about 2010.

- All compiled software is static. New versions are released. I'm happy to pay for new versions/features if I want/need them. But if the version I have is working offline, it doesn't need security updates, and if it does what I need, it doesn't need new features. Same applies if I'm building software for others, if the library does what I need for my software for my customers and I need nothing more off the dev, why should I keep paying the dev?

- I'm struggling not be sarcastic here, sorry, but this might shock you to hear: most humans find the idea of being able to try whatever they want and get paid for it appealing. That's not really how money or life works though.

- I don't know how to respond to this point, it's a bit of a strawman. Yes, if the only other option is to pay $50k up front for a local model, then your point is valid.

As a kid, I spent literally hundreds of £ on the first Sims, and Sims expansion packs at £20 /pop. EA got loads of money off me, I got loads of new features I wanted. I moaned at the time, but on reflection, everyone was a winner. Sims is still going now (possibly as a subscription!)

Again, apologies for a bit of sass here (that's a me problem), but the number of people who seem to sincerely believe the points you've put forward is why I'm personally sad at the state of modern software economics.

▲

chadash 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm old enough to remember buying software in cardboard boxes at Bestbuy.

> I don't know how to respond to this point, it's a bit of a strawman.

Why is it a strawman? I can sell you software for $100 once or I can sell it to you for $10/month. I don't think anyone is suggesting that I'm gonna sell it for $10 once though.

In particular, Desert Ant is saying their software is free for 100k active devices per SDK. That's likely a lot more users than most peoples' side projects. Given that, I'm guessing that $50k (even annually) is not a crazy number (yes, obviously $50k is not what a consumer would ever pay).

▲

horsawlarway 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

50k annually for a static set of weights is actually crazy, though.

As in - I make software for a living and they can fuck off. Produce the item. Sell the item at a cost you find reasonable. Convince me to buy it again with an upgrade that's worth buying.

Period.

There's no "service" happening here. If anything, the proposed cost model just makes me incredibly unlikely to engage at all, because it means they're going to insist on trying to track my users (a thing I don't like doing...) with whatever bloatware they shove into their "sdk".

	▲	weitendorf 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They're not selling it to you/it doesn't come out of your salary? They're selling it to your employer. You're literally not even the customer for this product. There's no need to get angry that they're charging enterprise/vendor rates for a product. And it's free for up to 100k devices. If you are running anything on 100k devices you should be able to afford $0.50/device and. If you aren't then why do you care? It's still a very customer-permissive and flexible business model so I cannot understand why this is upsetting or offensive

▲

1dom 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a strawman because it only makes sense if the one off up front cost is $50k, which wasn't the argument I was making. If the one-off up front cost is $20, then your point makes no sense - your boss would have no issue.

An alternative would be instead of 1 of charging over 100k users $50k, charge every user a one off $20.

I guess it's hard to discuss alternative billing methods without knowing what need to be recuperated.

Thanks for the response, appreciated. Again, sorry for the sassyness.