On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 at 06:14:37 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Monday, 5 January 2015 at 22:51:25 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Most commercial adopters are going to consider it very
important to have a support option that says, "If you have a
serious blocker, you can pay us money to guarantee that it
They are not going to be at all happy about a support option
that says, "If we develop a fix, then you are not going to get
it in a timely manner unless you pay."
Understanding that distinction is very important.
Haha, you do realize that those two quotes you laid out are the
exact same option? In the first option, you pay for a fix. In
the second option, you pay for a fix. What distinction you're
hoping to draw has not been made.
In the first option, you pay for a fix now, or you get it for
free when it's done independently of you, e.g. because someone
In the second option, you pay for a fix. If it's done
independently of you, you still pay.
I also think you assume far too much value on the part of
privileged/early access to bugfixes. A bug in a programming
language toolchain is either a commercial problem for you or
it isn't. If it's a commercial problem, you need it fixed,
and that fix in itself has a value to you. There is not
really any comparable change in value if that fix also gets
delivered to other users (who may or may not be competitors of
yours), because that isn't what differentiates your product.
Of course there's a change in value. If another user or
competitor also needs that fix and pays for it and upstreams it
before you do, that's a cost you don't have to pay at all.
Hence the whole "tragedy of the commons" I laid out in my first
If I get him right, Joseph's point is that the patch's value (not
its cost) for the customer doesn't change whether others have
access to it or not. So there's no advantage for the customer in
the early-access model. But there's a disadvantage: have to pay
for every patch. And so, an early-access model may not be
attractive to paying customers.
If I get you right, you're saying that the revenue for the patch
writer changes depending on if they sell the patch once or twice.
And therefore, there's an advantage for the patch writer in the
early-access model: can sell one patch multiple times.
You're both not wrong. If it works as planned, the early-access
isn't benefitial to the buyer, but to the seller. And that's the
point: move (more) money from customers to patch writers. It's
not a "win-win". It's not supposed to be. But if there's nothing
to gain in an early-access for the customer, why should they
prefer it over a competitor with immediate-access-for-everyone?
On the contrary, D is a programming language, and as such is
used by people to make commercial projects, and so those
people have a very strong interest in paying for commercial
support, based around the principle "If we need something
fixed, it will be fixed."
But they don't have an interest in a situation where, "If
something gets fixed, we have to pay."
The first of those options delivers value. The second is
I suggest you actually read what you're writing:
"people have a very strong interest in paying for commercial
support, based around the principle 'If we need something
fixed, it will be fixed.'"
"If something gets fixed, we have to pay."
In both cases, they're paying for fixes. If your point is that
in the first model they're paying up front through a support
subscription, whereas in the second model they're paying after
they identify the fix- a distinction I'm stretching to find as
you haven't really made it- both are still paying for a fix.
In the first model, they pay for specific fixes and get any
others for free.
In the second model, they pay for all fixes.
I think calling it "exploitation" may have been a bit inciting,
but I can understand the concern. Charging for bug fixes is a bit
shady, when we introduced the bugs ourselves.
And the whole thing could put off existing users, maybe even
contributors. Especially when core developers would work on the
early-access patches, the larger community could feel left out in