• justastranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    205
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Alt: proprietary software devs trying to live off their work as their primary income source while still allowing people to use their product for free

    • eating3645@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Get out of here with a level-headed response. We came to rabble.

      Rabble rabble! Something something evil! Rabble!

      • scytale@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I think a lot of the people who are against are the ones who don’t like the ad-removal model, because you are paying to remove ads on an app that uses a platform whose foundation is built against ads and tracking. The subscription model or one-time payment for life is fair IMO; people are free to support the dev (and please support the lemmy devs and instance admins too!). It’s the ads (and tracking that come with it) that’s kinda weird.

        • THED4NIEL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thinking one step further one could implement a revenue share from ads or subscriptions or third party apps, that supports the instance you are registered to on a voluntary basis (we don’t want to turn this into Reddit after all).

          This way the developer and the server instance owners could sustain their service, a hopefully symbiotic relationship.

          But I’m just throwing ideas in the room, doesn’t mean they’re good in the long run.

    • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      As an end-user I believe I am entitled to the freedom to use, modify, and share the software I use. If your business model is incompatible with my values I won’t support you, simple as. I don’t have any problem monetarily supporting developers but not if they disagree with my principles.

      I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this exact argument made against ad-blockers, too.

      • Kayn@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do have the freedom to modify the proprietary binary you’re being given. You just can’t distribute your modifications.

          • Kayn@dormi.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Irrelevant to the point I’m making. Whether something is open source or not does not impact your freedom to modify it, just the freedom to distribute your modifications.

            • stappern@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No it’s not you just don’t understand that withouth collective control you can’t have individual control.