Democratic vs Alternative software development funding
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:21 am
Not strictly speaking octane or Rhibo related: but it's a conversation/idea that started in the Mcneel forums with Micha and vCube from here...
I made an absentminded comment about crowd funding a periferal feature (to some) that a few felt passionately about...
It seems that currently software development is funded via a democratic process (it's the best analogy I could make; economics isn't my thing). Software developer invests time into proof of concept after having an idea: promotes that idea to all, and people vote for it with their licence fee. After that point paid updates and new business (based on expanded features) are planned and executed to 'keep all of the customers happy most of the time'...
what if after version 1 features were floated like a crowd funding idea: people buy into it (maybe at a reduced rate) then get access to that feature once it's reached its goal, funded, produced, tested & released... No funding? Feature doesn't get off the ground.
In some was this idea applies more to an ecosystem like Rhino where native rhino functions are all like little plugins... But there seem to be a lot of parallels to tensions between some vocal user groups and the Devs on all software platforms...
I'd love to direct my 10k/p.a for 'revit' to what I want rather than 'what most people want today & tomorrow'. Not anti progress: just only earn money from revit; and my pipeline for VR (the most out there thing I do with models) doesn't involve any other Building Desigb Suite software...
I made an absentminded comment about crowd funding a periferal feature (to some) that a few felt passionately about...
It seems that currently software development is funded via a democratic process (it's the best analogy I could make; economics isn't my thing). Software developer invests time into proof of concept after having an idea: promotes that idea to all, and people vote for it with their licence fee. After that point paid updates and new business (based on expanded features) are planned and executed to 'keep all of the customers happy most of the time'...
what if after version 1 features were floated like a crowd funding idea: people buy into it (maybe at a reduced rate) then get access to that feature once it's reached its goal, funded, produced, tested & released... No funding? Feature doesn't get off the ground.
In some was this idea applies more to an ecosystem like Rhino where native rhino functions are all like little plugins... But there seem to be a lot of parallels to tensions between some vocal user groups and the Devs on all software platforms...
I'd love to direct my 10k/p.a for 'revit' to what I want rather than 'what most people want today & tomorrow'. Not anti progress: just only earn money from revit; and my pipeline for VR (the most out there thing I do with models) doesn't involve any other Building Desigb Suite software...