The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:28:57PM +0100, Jb wrote:
> I know people who have done things like this. They get 1000s of downloads 
> and accaisionaly someone donates 5 bucks.

That's not the same. What I'm proposing is that the software plain
isn't written if you don't get enough money up front.

Downloading it isn't an option at all until the money is already paid,
because before then, the software doesn't exist yet.

> The vast majority of people will not pay if they dont have to.

Right, so the trick is to make it so they think they have to. Tax season
is coming up, and you really wish you had a program up to date with 
this year's tax code to help you out. Uh oh, no program exists, but there
is a development company saying they'll make one if they get a total
of $100,000 in investments.

Someone else might pay for it, but everyone would think that, so the
rational person has to assume that no one is going to pay for it, thus,
the software will never be written and he won't be able to use it.

Since he wants to use it, he must buy into the company. Of course, he can't
afford $100k up front, and even if he could, it isn't worth that much to him,
so he puts in a fraction of the total and hopes other people think the same
way.

If they do, good, they all get the product. If they don't, he can demand
his money back, since the development company didn't deliver the product.

> It may work for massive projects, with tens or hundreds of thousands of 
> users, but for small to medium size enterprize it will never work. At least 
> not for anything but a handful of developers.

Valid: I could see it being very hard for someone with a poor reputation
to get started, but that's again where the satisfaction guaranteed or your
money back clause comes in. Potential investors have very little risk
giving a new guy a chance, since they have little to lose if he fails.

> It's hard enough getting half a dozen people to decide on what features to 
> include in a prjoect they are all working on without having a couple of 
> hundred "investors" arguing over it as well.

Put a price on each feature.

If you want feature A, you have to pay an additional $1000 total.
Feature B is an additional $500.

An investor says "well, feature A is worth $20 to me, so I'll buy it." If
50 other investors feel the same way, then feature A gets implemented -
they paid for it, so they should get it.

If not, then it doesn't happen.

Adding a direct price up front for features is an easy way to keep them
limited. You set the prices so features that you really don't think are
a good idea cost more, to discourage people from buying them.

Then if they do buy it, you still win, since you get more money.

> And actualy, if I had to bend to the whim of my customers on every single 
> thing my product would actualy be worse for it. It would be the worst case 
> of design by commitee ever.

Well, it is still your product, so you can always do it a different way.
This is just a suggestion, just like copyright restrictions are a
suggestion on how to make money.


> If I dont own the product I am producing then no it's not a capatilist 
> system. The fundamental mechanism in capatilism is private ownership, 
> whether of physical or intellectual property.

So construction contractors aren't capitalists? They don't own the building
they were hired to build either. They do own their time and skill though,
just like a software developer working as a contractor.

> Another obvious downside is that people dont like having to wait. They want 
> the product now.

Good point, and businesses could specialize in this.

Someone could put up an offer saying that the software is already
written, and if we receive X dollars, we'll release it. If not, we'll
delete the whole thing.

It is like selling the software, but doing so in such a way that piracy
is impossible. By the time the program is out in the open so it can be pirated,
the company already has their money and doesn't care anymore.

> So you expect customers are going to wander around the interent, investing 
> money in lots of different projects that might or might not give them what 
> they want in 6 months time?

So you expect customers are going to wander around the Internet, investing
money in lots of different projects that might nor might not give them
what they want when the download is complete?

That's what copyrighted software as the product does and people are willing
to do it.

> And then when half these schemes fail they are going to go chasing the 
> developers up to get their money back?
> 
> CUCKOO!

It's their money, if they want to throw it away, fine. But if you invested
money in something and you didn't get that something, you'd probably want
your money back too, and since you have a contract (again, this
isn't just a donation button I'm talking about), you can prove that you
deserve it back to a court of law.

> Look there's been nothing stopping businesses operating like that for 
> decades, maybe even centuaries.

Yes, and things have been done that way for centuries. This isn't an original
idea.

How are buildings designed, constructed and maintained? One option there
is a building as a product - you build it and wait for someone to come and
buy it. I think that is how Donald Trump made his money.

The other option is you wait for someone to hire you to build it to their
specifications. This is how most construction companies and architecture
firms make their money.


-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net