Google's Content-ID program lets companies submit their own content that is then matched against every single frame of every uploaded video using state-of-the-art recognition technology and lets them block it or make money off the ads.
You can earn a living by writing GPL licensed software because at some point in the chain someone pays you or your employers some money. It's not magic.
Well, I'm glad this strawman is out of the way.
I never, ever claimed that money appeared from thin air when you write GPL'ed software. I just claimed it's possible to have a business model that doesn't rely on artificial scarcity, and my own job is a proof of that.
For music, there's pay-what-you-want releases where people consistently paid way more than they had to, there's albums on Kickstarter that have made $200k before they were even released and there's the well proven concerts and merchandising. None of which require artificial scarcity to work.
Look, this is for one dude running his services. At best he will have a load of 0.25.
Yes, that's why I in the wrote in the post you're replying to that a VPS is probably OP's best option, not cloud.
But even Google, for examples, their cloud does not "auto-upgrade" they have to add servers as demand rises and the server idle when demand drops.
In the perspective of a Google application developer - as opposed to an infrastructure person - they do add more (virtual) servers as demand rises. See Google App Engine:
As the traffic to your app increases, more instances of your app are created to handle the load without your having to monitor and requisition more resources.
Automatic scaling is built in with App Engine, all you have to do is write your application code and we'll do the rest.
Yes, that's why I'm trying to discuss different business models with you. I am not espousing a position here - I am exploring the space and trying to learn new things!
I think I'm hardly the right person to help you with that. This solution works for us - it doesn't mean I'm an expert in this issue.
If you could show how the "very-expensive-tool-it-took-20-man-years-to-make-for-a-small-audience-that-they-didn't-know-they-wanted-it-until-we-could-show-them-how-much-money-it-would-save" project could be reworked into a different business model that doesn't rely on artificial scarcity, I would be most appreciative.
And I would if I could. But the fact that I can't doesn't mean it can't be done. Or maybe those particular tools will never work without copyright, I don't know.
That said, that's an edge case. Most tools don't take 20-man-years before they're introduced to the market. That's what the whole MVP movement is all about - start small and if it works, grow from there.
Once the package you are writing GPL modules for becomes 'perfect' (or more likely 'good enough'), you've got no more income. What is the scaling factor between cost-of-producing-a-module and the one-time-single-fee you get for writing it?
It's hard to quantify. The direct margin is not huge, but there are real benefits over having those published modules out there with your company's name attached to them.
In any case, I do doubt you can make the same profit margins, but I'm OK with that.
Do commissioned modules get added to the standard set available to everybody?
Yes.
Why pay for a feature when I can wait three months for somebody else to buckle and pay for it?
Well, for one, because you need it now, not some time in the future. There are opportunity costs in being three months without it.
Secondly, because they can drive the development and make sure it fits exactly their needs (customization - usually by writing an extra module that extends the main one - is very important according to our experience).
Thirdly, because development is just part of the total costs, which usually include technical support, maintenance, training, etc.
If I invest years of my own time and hundreds of thousands of my own money, why shouldn't I be able to arrange things to recoup an actual profit for that?
Doesn't that assume that charging an yearly fee is the only way to achieve that? On what is that based?
If these algorithms allow other business to save themselves millions ever year, what's so wrong about trying to get some share of that? It's a win for both parties (and the environment) -- why the indignation?
I'm sorry, what indignation? Who said it was wrong?
If you don't like the price - don't buy it, but also - don't use it.
What's your point?
I thought we were talking about alternatives to artificial scarcity - last time I looked computers were physical items.
Actually, no, in that particular sentence we weren't. You justified charging an yearly fee based on yearly money savings, I just gave you an example where the former doesn't incur in the later.
In any case, I'm sure you can think of plenty of money-saving software that doesn't come with an yearly fee.
It's great to see kickstarter type projects gaining some traction - getting development totally funded before release is definitely a good model, if you can pull it off. Not applicable to my expensive-tool example above, though.
Maybe not. But it is to a whole range of them.
Services instead of software is the obvious other model - the code doing the useful thing only runs on the company's server (cloud cough) - that changes the scarcity from artificial to real.
You don't seem to get it, frankly. Yes, when your business model is based on secret source, you need artificial scarcity. Or, you could use a different business model.
And why should people pay you annual fees? My computer saves me a lot of time and money every year, but I don't pay a yearly fee to HP.
It's pretty annoying when you've just spent two years working on a console game to see it show up on torrent sites days before it is even available in the stores. As a salaried employee I was paid to make it just the same, and I do appreciate that a pirated copy doesn't equal a lost sale - it's a complex issue - but I also appreciate that the game studio I was working for no longer exists...
Two remarks: 1. The most pirated games are also the most sold ones. Piracy doesn't kill game studios, lack of customers does.
2. Again, different business models are needed. CLANG got $500k from customers before it was even made - before anyone could even consider copying it. Wasteland 2 got almost $3 million. Double Fine Adventure got $3.3 million.
GP didn't call him/herself a customer. (S)he said they don't know how to treat their customers, so it makes sense (s)he's not interested in spending $70 to become one.
(I'm not taking any position on whether (s)he should or not download the game illegally)
There's really not much to it. Essentially, we just charge for something that doesn't exist yet, so it can't be copied - regardless of copyright laws.
There's a GPL licensed platform that anyone can download, along with a bunch of third-party modules that you can plug to it. That platform and a few modules solve most of the problem for any given user, but there's always a bunch of stuff that neither the platform nor any existing modules do - e.g. it's not adapted to local laws, or it doesn't fit exactly the existing processes, or it doesn't integrate with some other software, etc. So users pay us to write new modules that fix those problems - which we then release with a GPL license for everyone.
We also offer some other services - installation, configuration and maintenance of the platform, training, etc.
If you want a similar business model but in a non-business context, Joey Hess just got $25000 from regular users to work on a GPL licensed application that doesn't exist yet (git-annex assistant), and he's hardly the only one.
Nobody sharing on P2P networks is claiming authorship.
They're completely unrelated issues. There's no hypocrisy except on your minds, and in countries with stupid authorship laws; in other countries, the copyright and attribution rights are independent, as it should be.
It does? When it gets heavily loaded, can it auto-upgrade itself for a couple of hours and then go back to its original configuration?
Don't get me wrong, my personal server is a run-of-the-mill VPS, because my needs are fairly static and it's cheaper, and that's probably OP's best option too.
But it's simply not true that a linux machine offers the same possibilities.
Which is why I specified "the first", which means I was referring to the development costs.
But it's not true that it applies to any kinds of online component. In fact, I'd say it doesn't apply to most online games; specifically, those which either: 1. Provide on-going revenue, either with service subscriptions or microtransactions (see WoW or TF2 hats) 2. Rely on the users to provide the servers (e.g. any Call of Duty up to MW2)
The other games are usually doomed from the start, because after the big sale period dies down, the servers are a pure liability anyway and there's a big pressure to cut them off, even without piracy.
Personally, I avoid them completely. I can still play Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory or UT99 online to this day, yet friends of mine who bought MGS3 were screwed after just a year.
One of those things is not like the others. Flattr is not social site, it's effectively a way to pay a cup of coffee to people who do nice things online. And it pools money on both ends, so you don't pay 60% of the donation on processing fees.
For those like me who don't need a feature packed application like org-mode and who prefer Vim to Emacs, there's VimOutliner. It's basic but very usable, and it comes with nice plugins (e.g. checklists) and scripts to export to various formats.
The problem with holding the extra money is that not all projects are prone to iteration like software. If they were making a film, for example, it'd be more useful to have a bigger initial budget than to get an extra amount after the film is finished.
And the reality is that KS wasn't really designed for this kind of product sale, but for the development of art projects funded by donations. People just ran with it and transformed it into a pre-ordering system, but it doesn't quite fit the bill.
Hell, they stretch GPL requirements by releasing source code months later and no one does anything.
I didn't like it either, but this is just wrong. They did release the GPL parts - namely, the kernel. They didn't release all the userspace, but that's Apache2 licensed, not GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Google's Content-ID program lets companies submit their own content that is then matched against every single frame of every uploaded video using state-of-the-art recognition technology and lets them block it or make money off the ads.
Megaupload took down links on request.
Yes, it's different.
You can earn a living by writing GPL licensed software because at some point in the chain someone pays you or your employers some money. It's not magic.
Well, I'm glad this strawman is out of the way.
I never, ever claimed that money appeared from thin air when you write GPL'ed software. I just claimed it's possible to have a business model that doesn't rely on artificial scarcity, and my own job is a proof of that.
For music, there's pay-what-you-want releases where people consistently paid way more than they had to, there's albums on Kickstarter that have made $200k before they were even released and there's the well proven concerts and merchandising. None of which require artificial scarcity to work.
Look, this is for one dude running his services. At best he will have a load of 0.25.
Yes, that's why I in the wrote in the post you're replying to that a VPS is probably OP's best option, not cloud.
But even Google, for examples, their cloud does not "auto-upgrade" they have to add servers as demand rises and the server idle when demand drops.
In the perspective of a Google application developer - as opposed to an infrastructure person - they do add more (virtual) servers as demand rises. See Google App Engine:
As the traffic to your app increases, more instances of your app are created to handle the load without your having to monitor and requisition more resources.
Automatic scaling is built in with App Engine, all you have to do is write your application code and we'll do the rest.
Yes, that's why I'm trying to discuss different business models with you.
I am not espousing a position here - I am exploring the space and trying to learn new things!
I think I'm hardly the right person to help you with that. This solution works for us - it doesn't mean I'm an expert in this issue.
If you could show how the "very-expensive-tool-it-took-20-man-years-to-make-for-a-small-audience-that-they-didn't-know-they-wanted-it-until-we-could-show-them-how-much-money-it-would-save" project could be reworked into a different business model that doesn't rely on artificial scarcity, I would be most appreciative.
And I would if I could. But the fact that I can't doesn't mean it can't be done. Or maybe those particular tools will never work without copyright, I don't know.
That said, that's an edge case. Most tools don't take 20-man-years before they're introduced to the market. That's what the whole MVP movement is all about - start small and if it works, grow from there.
Once the package you are writing GPL modules for becomes 'perfect' (or more likely 'good enough'), you've got no more income.
What is the scaling factor between cost-of-producing-a-module and the one-time-single-fee you get for writing it?
It's hard to quantify. The direct margin is not huge, but there are real benefits over having those published modules out there with your company's name attached to them.
In any case, I do doubt you can make the same profit margins, but I'm OK with that.
Do commissioned modules get added to the standard set available to everybody?
Yes.
Why pay for a feature when I can wait three months for somebody else to buckle and pay for it?
Well, for one, because you need it now, not some time in the future. There are opportunity costs in being three months without it.
Secondly, because they can drive the development and make sure it fits exactly their needs (customization - usually by writing an extra module that extends the main one - is very important according to our experience).
Thirdly, because development is just part of the total costs, which usually include technical support, maintenance, training, etc.
If I invest years of my own time and hundreds of thousands of my own money, why shouldn't I be able to arrange things to recoup an actual profit for that?
Doesn't that assume that charging an yearly fee is the only way to achieve that? On what is that based?
If these algorithms allow other business to save themselves millions ever year, what's so wrong about trying to get some share of that?
It's a win for both parties (and the environment) -- why the indignation?
I'm sorry, what indignation? Who said it was wrong?
If you don't like the price - don't buy it, but also - don't use it.
What's your point?
I thought we were talking about alternatives to artificial scarcity - last time I looked computers were physical items.
Actually, no, in that particular sentence we weren't. You justified charging an yearly fee based on yearly money savings, I just gave you an example where the former doesn't incur in the later.
In any case, I'm sure you can think of plenty of money-saving software that doesn't come with an yearly fee.
It's great to see kickstarter type projects gaining some traction - getting development totally funded before release is definitely a good model, if you can pull it off.
Not applicable to my expensive-tool example above, though.
Maybe not. But it is to a whole range of them.
Services instead of software is the obvious other model - the code doing the useful thing only runs on the company's server (cloud cough) - that changes the scarcity from artificial to real.
Well, I certainly won't advocate for that ;)
You don't seem to get it, frankly. Yes, when your business model is based on secret source, you need artificial scarcity. Or, you could use a different business model.
And why should people pay you annual fees? My computer saves me a lot of time and money every year, but I don't pay a yearly fee to HP.
It's pretty annoying when you've just spent two years working on a console game to see it show up on torrent sites days before it is even available in the stores.
As a salaried employee I was paid to make it just the same, and I do appreciate that a pirated copy doesn't equal a lost sale - it's a complex issue - but I also appreciate that the game studio I was working for no longer exists...
Two remarks:
1. The most pirated games are also the most sold ones. Piracy doesn't kill game studios, lack of customers does.
2. Again, different business models are needed. CLANG got $500k from customers before it was even made - before anyone could even consider copying it. Wasteland 2 got almost $3 million. Double Fine Adventure got $3.3 million.
Google has plenty of privacy issues, and I've moved away from GMail and GReader due to them.
That said, googleapis.com doesn't have a single cookie on my system, so if they're using it to track people, they don't do a very good job at it.
GP didn't call him/herself a customer. (S)he said they don't know how to treat their customers, so it makes sense (s)he's not interested in spending $70 to become one.
(I'm not taking any position on whether (s)he should or not download the game illegally)
There's really not much to it. Essentially, we just charge for something that doesn't exist yet, so it can't be copied - regardless of copyright laws.
There's a GPL licensed platform that anyone can download, along with a bunch of third-party modules that you can plug to it. That platform and a few modules solve most of the problem for any given user, but there's always a bunch of stuff that neither the platform nor any existing modules do - e.g. it's not adapted to local laws, or it doesn't fit exactly the existing processes, or it doesn't integrate with some other software, etc. So users pay us to write new modules that fix those problems - which we then release with a GPL license for everyone.
We also offer some other services - installation, configuration and maintenance of the platform, training, etc.
If you want a similar business model but in a non-business context, Joey Hess just got $25000 from regular users to work on a GPL licensed application that doesn't exist yet (git-annex assistant), and he's hardly the only one.
Nobody complains when you copy a GPLed work.
Nobody sharing on P2P networks is claiming authorship.
They're completely unrelated issues. There's no hypocrisy except on your minds, and in countries with stupid authorship laws; in other countries, the copyright and attribution rights are independent, as it should be.
You're American, aren't you?
In other countries, we don't rely on copyright to protect attribution rights. Copyright is just one of the authorship rights, attribution is another.
There's no inconsistency between defending attribution rights and the elimination of copyright.
But the artefact building business model, just those particular ones which rely on artificial scarcity.
I make a living by writing GPL licensed software, so clearly there are alternatives.
There's http://simple.wikipedia.org/
It does everything the so called cloud has done
It does? When it gets heavily loaded, can it auto-upgrade itself for a couple of hours and then go back to its original configuration?
Don't get me wrong, my personal server is a run-of-the-mill VPS, because my needs are fairly static and it's cheaper, and that's probably OP's best option too.
But it's simply not true that a linux machine offers the same possibilities.
For those wondering, the project website links to the jQuery library hosted on Google's server so they don't have to host it themselves.
And more importantly, so that we don't have to be constantly re-download the same file, since we probably already have Google's copy cached.
Which is why I specified "the first", which means I was referring to the development costs.
But it's not true that it applies to any kinds of online component. In fact, I'd say it doesn't apply to most online games; specifically, those which either:
1. Provide on-going revenue, either with service subscriptions or microtransactions (see WoW or TF2 hats)
2. Rely on the users to provide the servers (e.g. any Call of Duty up to MW2)
The other games are usually doomed from the start, because after the big sale period dies down, the servers are a pure liability anyway and there's a big pressure to cut them off, even without piracy.
Personally, I avoid them completely. I can still play Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory or UT99 online to this day, yet friends of mine who bought MGS3 were screwed after just a year.
One of those things is not like the others. Flattr is not social site, it's effectively a way to pay a cup of coffee to people who do nice things online. And it pools money on both ends, so you don't pay 60% of the donation on processing fees.
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience
http://www.reddit.com/r/printSF/
You could try Hacker News. Its unofficial tagline is "this isn't Reddit".
For those like me who don't need a feature packed application like org-mode and who prefer Vim to Emacs, there's VimOutliner. It's basic but very usable, and it comes with nice plugins (e.g. checklists) and scripts to export to various formats.
The first is a red herring. The costs exist regardless of any piracy. A pirate doesn't "cost" any more than any other non-buyer, which is 0.
It's not DRM because it can actually work - and by work, I mean finally achieve the producers' goal of taking away all the power from the gamer.
The problem with holding the extra money is that not all projects are prone to iteration like software. If they were making a film, for example, it'd be more useful to have a bigger initial budget than to get an extra amount after the film is finished.
And the reality is that KS wasn't really designed for this kind of product sale, but for the development of art projects funded by donations. People just ran with it and transformed it into a pre-ordering system, but it doesn't quite fit the bill.
http://code.google.com/intl/pt-PT/opensource/projects.html
Hell, they stretch GPL requirements by releasing source code months later and no one does anything.
I didn't like it either, but this is just wrong. They did release the GPL parts - namely, the kernel. They didn't release all the userspace, but that's Apache2 licensed, not GPL.
MacOSX and iOS are both versions of *nix...