On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Christian Franz <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On 7 Nov 2011, at 12:57, Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote: > > Arran, > > thank you for your perspective. I don't fully agree, though: > > > I think what the OP was complaining about was the fact that many > > developers external to the Growl project added support because it > > represented an easy, free, and standardised way to distribute alerts > > to their programs users. Growl would not have the popularity it enjoys > > today without the time and hard work of developers outside of the > > Growl project, > > An interesting hypothesis that bears some (biased) analysis. (I would > submit that the OP is not a developer who invested time to support growl, > so from his perspective the point is moot.) > As a developer myself, I can positively state that even if Growl was > commercial we would have supported it. It's not that there are alternatives > (paid or free) available. For example, our software also supports the (paid > for) SpaceNavigator, without getting any kickback. As a developer you > support software that enhances your product - paid or free. I know of no > fellow programmer who would have balked at supporting growl if they made > the front-end paid from day zero. More to the point: I submit *more* > professionals would have supported a PAID Growl in the beginning - simply > because a steady revenue stream indicates that support of the software can > be guaranteed for the foreseeable future, and your investment risk is > smaller. > > So, no, I don't think interpreting the OP's point that way has any merit > either. There is no 'fact that many developers' added support growl because > it was free. I think the majority did it in *spite* of it being free. They > took the risk because it was the easiest alternative and provided a > standard - just like you state. > > > > but those developers will not benefit from the app > > store revenue. > > No reason they should. But there is a way that they can. :D So the iTunes store has had a revenue sharing method in place since oh.. 2004 I think. Developers can take advantage of this if they would like to. This link has more information: http://www.apple.com/itunes/affiliates/ > If I support iPhoto, Aperture or some other app (as we do), I don't expect > any benefit other than the fact that my software has another unique selling > point. You do it because it *adds* to *your* product. Not the other way > around. Have you tried to implement a global notification system for your > app without growl? Perhaps used Apple's horrid Notification Manager? Growl > was a godsend that cut 40 hours from our development project. That is > direct value in the 2-4k range (depending on what you pay for cocoa/carbon > dev per hour). Do you really think that a pro (i.e. for-profit) software > title supports growl just to show support for growl? If so, they have their > business sense in serious disarray. Pros support growl because they see the > value it represents to them - and couldn't care less how much growl's > creators make. > > And that is what gets me so riled. I *know* of the tremendous value growl > has for developers *and* customers. Growl's devs chose not to tap that well > until now. Now they try to put Growl on secure financial footing, and > perhaps some bread on their tables. Instead of getting praise for not > charging in the past, they get hated on by freeloaders who think they are > entitled to freebies. > > > Open source software is usually a collaborative enterprise, more of a > > socialist system than a capitalist one, and as a contributor to > > multiple open source projects, the switch kind of grates. > > Well, I definitely disagree on that. To me, OpenSource has nothing to do > with socialism, but everything with sharing of scarce resources - for those > involved; definitely not the end user. I need to feed my family, and I code > for money. I have utmost respect for people who donate their time to an > open source project. > But I have only exasperation for people who think that software should > cost nothing (I think Stallman is an idiot who confuses wishful thinking > with ethics), software based on open source should cost nothing, or that > simply because it used to cost nothing, it should remain that way. > > The OP, ignorant as he may be, openly called out the dev team to be > ashamed for something they should be praised for. To me, that was > unacceptable. > > -ch > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Growl Discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
