Journler 2.6 and the new Journler license
January 18th, 2008“Journler is provided free of charge and always will be. No matter how often Journler is updated or what additions are made, you will have free access to all of its features for an unlimited time.” — Philip Dow, August 2006
When Journler 2.5 was released I introduced a distinction that I hoped would allow me to remain as close as possible to this promise. I wrote at the time that, as an indie developer I was doing my best to stay true to my original intentions but it was becoming more and more difficult.
It has continued this way. Generally speaking, downloads do not lead to donations, and when they do it is often the minimum. In the past few months, Journler has become more and more popular but I have earned less and less money. I have come to accept the inevitable fact that an approach to software development which sustains itself primarily by gift is difficult if not impossible to maintain.
The problems are frustrating and circular. As Journler became more popular, the support requirements became greater. I ended up spending more time supporting users than releasing updates. With fewer updates, less income came in. The result is that, paradoxically, Journler’s recent popularity has led to fewer earnings.
It has been suggested that I solve my problems by hiring additional help. But in order to hire help I need Journler to produce more income. In order to increase my income I must release updates. In order to release those updates I need to hire help, which of course costs money. Quite the bind.
I remain committed to producing a great product with steady updates supported by timely customer service. Thousands of users from across the world have found in Journler a useful and dependable application. I aim to keep it that way. Not to mention the great improvements that I’m just itching to work on if I can only find the time. I want to see Journler grow just as much as you do.
To make sure this happens I have settled on the difficult decision of transforming Journler into a shareware application. Beginning with 2.6, the unenforced distinction between personal and non-personal licenses will be eliminated. Instead, a single license will cost $34.95 with an evaluation period of 60 days. Student and bulk discounts will be offered.
If you have already purchased a license or donated, the cost of the 2.6 upgrade will vary depending upon the circumstances of your contribution. For anyone with a non-personal license, the 2.6 upgrade will be free. Users who donated for a personal use license will be required to make up the difference between their contribution and the current price of $24.95. For example, if you donated $10 then the 2.6 upgrade will cost $14.95.
On Wednesday, January 23rd I will effect the price change while leaving the fee noncompulsory until 2.6 is actually released. That is, beginning Wednesday I will still be requesting donations for personal use and requiring licenses for non-personal use, but at the single price of $34.95. As in the past, you may choose whether you will abide by those terms. However, once 2.6 is released there will be an evaluation period of 60 days at which time the purchase of a license will be required.
You may purchase a license at any point between now and Wednesday. Doing so ensures a savings of $10 on the price of v2.6, whether you make a partial or full purchase. Individuals who purchase a license for $34.95 after January 23rd will not be required to pay any upgrade fee for v2.6.
This has been a difficult decision, but it is the right one. Software has become my business, and the only way I am able to continue offering quality products with regular updates and timely customer service is if I treat these products as any business does. Thanks for your support and understanding.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Right on, Phil.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I’m sure it’s not an easy decision, and I’ll happily pay the fee for 2.6.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Thank you for your hard work on the app! I have enjoyed using Journler on my WP site.
Do you foresee 2.6 having the capability to utilize the blog function where you can choose the category? I am still able to use the blog function, but since the API function went away, I manually choose the category. Will his remain the same? I hope to have more blogging access, especially for the WP users!
Thanks again for your great App!!
Cheers!
January 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
It’s a great program, and you deserve to be paid for it. Thanks for all your hard work!
January 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Phil, do it to it. Think that’s a fair price. I sent in a $25 donation a fair ways back, and I’ll be happy to send the difference, especially to keep Journler and yourself alive and well.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I love journler and it helped me a lot with organizing lots of different information. i will happily pay the difference to my donation! i hope this decision will will work out for you! best of luck!
January 18th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I’m with you 100% on that. Congratulations on a great product, and for moving forward toward making it even better (and more profitable!). This is terrific news for everyone.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Thanks for the update Phil. U DA MAN!! Journler is a great app. I’ll gladly pay the difference between my donation and the license fee. You made the right decision. The way I see it, my donation was a down payment to try out Journler for an extended period of time. Time for me to pay up!!
January 18th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
You have built an amazing piece of software that is worth much more than your asking price. I hope this will be for the better and that we’ll be able to enjoy a long future of wonderful updates to an amazing piece of software!
I support your decision and look forward to Journler 2.6!
January 19th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Phil, it’s the best solution to take real money. People will pay, why not? It’s a great sw!
January 19th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I agree–Journler is a great application. I use it in my professional life (I paid for a license!) and I’m glad to see that you’re taking a path that will ensure that you continue to develop it. $34.95 is a great price for such a useful piece of software.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:59 am
Is it safe to assume that users who don’t pay the full price will still be able to use Journal but not be able to upgrade to 2.6? I’ll probably buy the upgrade anyway, because it’s totally worth it, but it wouldn’t seem fair to not have the option of continuing to use the old version for free / whatever the old donation was.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
@whitey
Yes. Journler 2.5 will remain donationware so that folks can forego the 2.6 upgrade and continue using the program if they can’t pay.
I am intentionally releasing the 2.5.4 Leopard compatibility update under the 2.5 series so that folks aren’t forced to pay for said compatibility. You’d be surprised how many people recommended against doing that.
Of course, all the Leopard specific features will be reserved for 2.6 and higher. And eventually I will stop supporting versions prior to 2.6.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Journler was fantastic but it didn’t allow me to sync via .Mac, so I bought Yojimbo. If Journler can sync in the new version I will gladly upgrade my previous ‘donation’ to purchase it. I wish I’d known things were cooking again with Journler before the 1/23 cutoff. In any case, I’ll gladly take another look.
January 27th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I work for a software company and my salary is paid by people who pay for the software. I think this is just the way the world works. It’s a Utopian dream that somehow a software developer will get money out of the goodness of people’s hearts. I say you’re making the right decision. I haven’t paid yet, but I will if it means I can’t use the software!
My only question/recommendation: Why $34.95? Why not just charge $35?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:09 am
@emgee
Aside from all the marketing-psychological reasons for charging .01 or .05 less — which aren’t my reasons for doing so — folks actually expect prices to end in those odd numbers. I decided from a business perspective that it would be better to go with the flow on pricing than to try something different.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
[…] Read more about the changes to Journler’s license […]
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
[…] the program. To allow him to continue developing Journler, with the forthcoming 2.6 release, the app is moving to a paid-only license: a single use license will be $34.95, with no more free rides (but a generous 60-day evaluation […]
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
[…] the program. To allow him to continue developing Journler, with the forthcoming 2.6 release, the app is moving to a paid-only license: a single use license will be $34.95, with no more free rides (but a generous 60-day evaluation […]
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
[…] the program. To allow him to continue developing Journler, with the forthcoming 2.6 release, the app is moving to a paid-only license: a individual use license will be $34.95, with no more free rides (but a generous 60-day evaluation […]
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Don’t blame you for a second
I send people my plays all t he time — with the understanding the users make a donation to a non-profit. It’s almost guarantee that I will not hear anything from the people after that
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 am
[…] People have a hard time realizing what really goes into software development. They have the perception that it costs nothing to develop, distribute and support. To get a better understanding on his decision read his blog post. […]
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 am
[…] the program. To allow him to continue developing Journler, with the forthcoming 2.6 release, the app is moving to a paid-only license: a single use license will be $34.95, with no more free rides (but a generous 60-day evaluation […]
February 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
[…] von Journler wird seine Software ab Version 2.6, die demnächst erscheinen soll, nicht mehr als Donationware, sonder für den Preis von 34,95 Dollar anbieten. Scheinbar spenden auf freiwilliger Basis zu wenig […]
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 am
[…] werden zu einer Version zusammen geführt und für 34,95 USD angeboten. Seine Begründung ist hier […]
February 27th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I love Journler, and if I wasn’t flat broke I would’ve donated by now. However what I loved about journler—besides its elegant interface—was that it gave me the only two features (journaling locally and selectively posting to LiveJournal) that I cared about from MacJournal. MacJournal sells for $34.95. And now blogging has been dropped from Journler.
All I want is a journal app with decent word processing features so I can make it look nice (like a real dead tree journal) while optionally—but seamlessly—posting those entries I feel like sharing to a blog. Where am I supposed to go?
I really need to learn how to dev.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
@sheepguy42 Journler now offers seamless integration with the blogging applications that are already available for the Mac and do a much better of managing a blog that Jounler can. It means you’ll need to use two applications, and you’ll have to pay for both, but that’s the nature of the thing.
I understand the desire for built-in blogging support and if I have the time and resources it’s something I’d like to re-introduce in the future. In the meantime I felt my efforts were better spent on unique features.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
[…] the program. To allow him to continue developing Journler, with the forthcoming 2.6 release, the app is moving to a paid-only license: a single use license will be $34.95, with no more free rides (but a generous 60-day evaluation […]
March 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am
@Phil
I understand what you’re saying, but I think you missed my point. I agree that charging a fixed amount for the software is necessary, and I encourage you to do what’s needed to pay the bills. All I’m suggesting is that $34.95 is a bit much: MacJournal is a journal app with full blogging support. Why would I pay the same amount for a journaling app that has fewer features?
I’m all about independent developers paying bills, but I have bills too—and they require me to get the most ‘bang’ out of my ‘buck.’
March 19th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
@sheepguy42
I would suggest that Journler has many more features than MacJournal and offers a better user experience even if it does not have blogging. It’s a matter of priorities. If you feel Journler is too expensive and lament the absence of blogging, use MacJournal. If you nevertheless continue to use Journler despite the price and blogging, then it only proves that Journler is in fact the better deal. =)
I don’t have a problem with folks requesting features or using other applications. I would prefer to have blogging as well and I’ve seen and used some amazing journaling and PIM apps out there. But I strongly disagree that $34.95 is too expensive.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
[…] Read more about this decision. […]
March 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Phil, I am with you 100%. Don’ you feel *any* bad about charging people to use your work! You’ve being incredibly generous offering Journler for free to individuals all this time. I can’t think of an application that would be offering more for free. Further, $35 is by now means too expensive - in fact, I can see how this must be deliberately set a little less than the typical $40 for many Mac PIM sharewares around.
I think I will definitely buy the 2.6 once it comes out. Others please don’t hate me for suggesting, but I really believe Phil wouldn’t lose much business at all if he priced the product a little higher - as long as it is under $50. Anything over $50, I’d think harder..
Did you notice how I’m saying “I’ll pay for the 2.6″, not “I am paying right now”? - Another proof that your are right to enforce the fee Phil! We are all good people but generally won’t pay whenever we can avoid it - psychology, frugality, whatever you may call it. In fact, I just recently forced myself to pay the suggested “donation” to Yasu’s Jim Mitchel - was just sitting there one evening, running Yasu, staring at the nagging message, and then thought: “Is it really that I can’t afford the $3.50 the guy is asking for?!. Come on…” Ashamed, I paid right then. A good illustration.
Well, good luck, I’ll be looking for more improvements and hoping you’ll avoid feature bloat…
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Good for you. You certainly deserve the money.
Great price too.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I understand it’s hard to pay the bandwidth bills, but I’m a brokeass college student. I was using WriteRoom until it stopped being freeware, and switched over to Journler. I may end up buying a license, but for the time being, I’m going to stick with either the free version, or something else.
I just want something simple and cheap for taking notes in class with. I’d use OneNote since I have an evaluation license, but I’m running a Mac. I just want a workalike - can anyone help?
April 13th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
[…] Journler’s pricing structure has evolved over the years. It started as freeware, then moved to freeware for personal use and shareware for non-personal use. Today, Journler is fully shareware with a price tag of $34.95. (Dow struggled with this decision, which you can read about here.) […]
May 17th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Sure you have the right to charge for your own software, and it’s up to you and only you to determine what price is best.
But….
You’re breaking your promise. Some people trusted that promise. Some of them may not have chosen Journler back in 2006 if they had known that it would become shareware two years later.
Changing to another application may involve moving tons of Journler entries to the other application, which probably will not be so easy. This definitely gives Journler an advantage over other apps that have a similar price/quality ratio: current Journler users will not move easily to another app because of the burden. You obtained this advantage by first attracting many users with a free app, and then breaking a promise.
Perhaps there are other options? Perhaps simply giving less support? I think most people would definitely understand less support since it’s donation-ware. Or charging for access to the support pages? And/or using Journler as a free lever to sell other shareware software products? Or making a free and a “pro” version of Journler?
IMO, it’s not a matter of whether you deserve a fee, whether you’ve been already generous, or whether your software is certainly worth X $, but one of breaking a promise. In the future, please be more careful.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
@ziph4
I did in fact break a promise. There are no other options. Either I stop working on Journler or I start charging for it.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
What I fail to find in your announcement, or any other information regarding this licensing change, is the upgrade policy.
Are all further upgrades free, only “minor” upgrades or do you get upgrades for one or two years before you have to pay again?
Sadly, donationware doesn’t seem to work, so I kind of understand your decision. However, I don’t know whether to trust any declared upgrade policy. I think you made a mistake (a) to give that promise in the first place and (b) to break it.
A better option to stick close to the promise IMO would have been to keep offering a free version and to introduce a mightily feature-improved “pro” version (yes I know, that’s hard given Journler’s great feature set as it is).
Please note that I would have donated for Journler, as it is a great app, and I have donated for other donationware apps before, but I simply don’t use it, because I have some general griefs with archiving websites inside of Mac apps (relating to Webkit/web archives; I rather stick to saving via Camino and using Spotlight), and I had already paid for Mori. Unfotunately, Mori seems to be going nowhere, as it has seemingly fallen into the hands of an incompetent developer. Journler would have been the best alternative. But I’m not sure of that now.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
@Alex W.
a) Upgrades will work as they do with any application. Minor upgrades will be free, a few .x point upgrades as well I imagine. When I determine it’s necessary to charge — because of time elapsed but more likely additional features — I will.
b) A free version of Journler *will* remain available. There is nothing to prevent users from sticking with pre shareware versions of Journler. I will eventually stop supporting those versions, but users can always choose to stay with what they have rather than update.
c) It is unfortunate but in my opinion necessary that I have broken a promise made three years ago. I did not have the foresight to determine my current situation. But I must charge or stop working on Journler. It is an either/or situation. What would you rather have? An evolving application that costs money like most others or a dead application that has been abandoned because the previous developer has had to find a job that pays the bills.
d) If you’re using Journler to archive websites, you’re not really usually Journler to its full potential. I don’t mean to criticize. I’m sure you have a legitimate need. But Journler is primarily a journaling application. If you’re just archive web pages, better to go with something else anyway.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I am sorry to see that you chose to go back on your word. It was the wrong choice:
1. People invested time and effort to learn to use your application and input their data, with the expectation that they will be able to use it freely indefinitely. You owe them, not the other way around.
2. The excuse that it takes too much time to support is worthless. If you need help, turn it into an open source project. I am sure that there will be more than enough contributors to keep it going like many thousands of other open source projects. If you want to make your living out of it, you can sell support to commercial users.
3. Shareware is dead. Any program worth using gets cracked and made available on the p2p networks within days, effectively turning shareware into donationware: people get it on trial, and if they like it, they go and get the cracked version. If they are the kind of people who can afford donations, they might go and buy a license eventually.
If you think that the choice is between screwing your users and stopping to work on it, you should stop. And turn over the source code to other maintainers.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
@ justloop
You are wrong.
1. People can continue using the free version if they want. Use it for free indefinitely.
2. I considered open source. Open source doesn’t solve all the problems. What happens when dozens of users every day need assistance? Technical expertise that only comes with the experience of actually developing the application will be required. I suppose I should help everyone for free? And I suppose all the open source code monkeys should spend the free time after their real jobs helping everyone for free as well?
3. Oh? Funny, I don’t make a tremendous amount of money, but uh, I make enough every month to live. And so do the hundreds of other shareware developers I just met *tonight* at an indie developers’ party before WWDC. Maybe you steal the thousands of hours of work those shareware developers put into their products, but most people don’t. And by your argument, it isn’t only shareware that’s dead but every -ware. You can crack any program. I suppose Photoshop should be donationware open source as well without any technical support or regular upgrades?
“If you think that the choice is between screwing your users and stopping to work on it, you should stop.” Good thing it’s my decision, and good thing 99% of the users support it.
Oh, and by the way. Go to hell.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
1. “People can continue using the free version if they want. Use it for free indefinitely.”
The 10.6 is rumored to be scheduled for early next year. Are you going to fix the free version if there are problems? Are you going to do it for the 10.7? 11.0?
2. “What happens when dozens of users every day need assistance?”
Same thing that happens when thousands of users need assistance for any sizable open source project: either they go to free, low-maintenance sources of support such as user forums or wikis, or, if they need it, they pay a support fee to someone who can support them professionally. (This would be you, in this case.)
3. “I don’t make a tremendous amount of money, but uh, I make enough every month to live.”
Hmm, I thought the whole point of this licence change was that you didn’t make enough money…oh well. In any case, there is no way you can be sure that shareware model brings in more revenues than open source + paid support model would, given a larger user base.
“…99% of the users support it.”
Even allowing for dramatic license, I think this should be rephrased as “99% of the users I haven’t already lost support it.”
“Oh, and by the way. Go to hell.”
That is uncalled for. Do you respond always like this when you hear something that you don’t like? Maybe you should consider how your (ex-) users felt when they learned that you have decided to screw them. I bet a fair proportion felt like saying the same thing to you.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
“That is uncalled for. Do you respond always like this when you hear something that you don’t like?”
No, but when someone who has no idea of the work I’ve put into this project for the last three years and the difficulty of the decision I have made accuses me of screwing my users and asserts that stealing the application is a more reasonable course of action, then I am going to respond like that.
For a more rational response to a less accusatory post, refer to the above comments or the Journler forums.
The problem in your case is two fold. First, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and second, when you do talk, you’re wrong.
“The 10.6 is rumored to be scheduled for early next year. Are you going to fix the free version if there are problems? Are you going to do it for the 10.7? 11.0?”
I can’t tell you when 10.6 is scheduled for release. NDA. But it isn’t early next year. More importantly, if Apple actually means what it says, there won’t be any problems. If there are, no, I will not fix them and I will explicitly tell users that they must upgrade to the licensed version for additional support.
I struggled immensely with the decision to end the freeware version and begin charging for Journler. I have treaded as carefully as I could informing users and ensuring that the changes took no one by surprise.
I’ve been in the process of making that transition — if not publicly then privately as I weighed my options, no easy task –for over a year. During that time I intentionally released a free 2.5.4 upgrade that ensured a free version of Journler would be Leopard compatible.
That decision was against the advice of my own parents, my developer representative at Apple, some of my closest friends and associates and Journler users themselves. “Charge for the Leopard compatibility release” was the consistent recommendation. But I was breaking a promise, and I would work my damnedest to make sure the break caught no one off guard.
And so, Journler 2.5.4 requires a license but the policy is not enforced. That way no one is required to purchase a license just because they upgraded to Leopard, and it guarantees compatibility for what I consider to be an extremely reasonable amount of time.
Once that time expires, or for additional features, then yes I will require that users pay for an upgrade. You have no idea — none whatsover– of my involvement in this project. Coding, maintenance, bug fixes, feature requests, bug reports, a user community, forum posts, daily dozens of emails, web hosting expenses, iconography, long nights, ungrateful demanding emails from users who never send a cent. But to end it on a positive note, many many emails from the grateful who write only to say thanks and never otherwise make a peep.
Do users owe me? I wouldn’t brush it aside so quickly, but I can understand the arguments against it. Do I deserve recompense? Absolutely.
In the end, open source was not an option for me. Open source can make useful contributions no doubt, but I felt the project would lose direction, and I have vision I would like to see realized. Then there is the user support. When you purchase a license, that license isn’t just for a piece of intellectual property, an abstract, reproducible and yes crackable bit of code. You are purchasing the labor of an individual both past and future, the work he put into the code and the support he will try (and sometimes fail) to give you. Finally, let’s be honest. I like earning my living with it. I like making money with Journler. Why not? Beats a corporate 9-5 any day.
And nevertheless I am open sourcing and publishing apis used in Journler. Most of the non-essential interface and utility code is already available. So is the plugin api. What I call the Core and Journler-UI frameworks will soon be available, albeit these not open.
Did I make enough with donations? No I did not. Do I make enough with an explicit but unenforced license policy? It surprises me every time, but so far, yes. All I had to do was require a license and the community supported me. 99% is no doubt hyperbole, but I am confident a significant majority of Journler’s users support the decision. They have made that evident in the past few months with their purchases.
But do I make enough to expand? To create a high quality iPhone application? To add Bonjour networking? To re-implement blogging? To localize the application in a timely manner and professionally? To spruce up the interface with great new icons? To start work on other projects? To maintain a working relationship with business and schools? To offer better user support? No. I hope that once I actually start enforcing the policy, which is still months off, I will be.
So you bet, when a user comes along making accusations and legitimizing theft of my work, damn straight I’m going to tell that user to go to hell. That person has no idea what they’re talking about.
Feel free to make a last reply. I’ll post it but I doubt I’ll continue the conversation.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:39 am
“…when a user comes along making accusations…”
to accuse: to charge with a fault or offense
“I did in fact break a promise.”
I wasn’t accusing, I was repeating what you had already admitted in a previous post. What remains is seeing if there are enough arguments to absolve you from “an obligation that binds the conscience”. To summarize, your arguments are:
1. I put in large amounts of time into this project. This entitles me to charge for it as I see fit.
Yes, it does. However, it doesn’t entitle you to break an earlier promise that “[it] is free of charge and always will be”. It would be OK if you charged from the start, it is not OK to switch after people decided to use it, and invested (in aggregate) vastly more time than you did.
2. I need to charge so that I can afford to continue personally developing it.
Yes, I don’t doubt this is true. However, you don’t need to continue to develop it full time. You can make it an open source project, reduce your involvement to a reasonable level, and make your living from providing paid support.
3. I have agonized long and hard before making this decision. My suffering absolves me.
No refutation needed. (I blame Hollywood for this unfortunately very common argument.)
4. I have already admitted that I broke my promise. That absolves me.
Admittance of culpability is (at most) a necessary condition for a pardon, not a sufficient one. Furthermore, even if some (or a majority) of your users pardon you, it doesn’t amount to an absolution.
4. Other people advised me to break my promise even earlier. Their abetment absolves me.
No, it doesn’t. Actually, the fact that you had deliberated and consulted about breaking your explicit promise, and then went ahead and broke it anyway makes it even less acceptable.
5. By pointing out that all programs are crackable and available, you legitimize theft! Your wrong absolves me.
Pointing out that guns kill people doesn’t make one a murderer, pointing out that most doors can be unlocked easily with a blank key and hammer doesn’t make one a thief, pointing out…well, you get the idea.
6. I think you have no idea what it takes to develop a mid-size program. Therefore, I can break my promise.
Even assuming that the premise is correct (it isn’t), the conclusion doesn’t follow.
7. I don’t think making the program FOSS is a good idea. Therefore, I can break my promise.
You don’t explain why FOSS + paid support is not a workable alternative that would enable further development and support for your users and a livelihood for yourself. Even if it isn’t, the conclusion doesn’t follow.
You can call me names, tell me go to hell, call your users ungrateful, not “continue the conversation” or not post this one…none of this changes the fact that you broke a very explicit, very clear promise to keep your program freeware, and caused harm to people who believed you.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Can’t … refuse … rebuttal …
“I wasn’t accusing, I was repeating what you had already admitted in a previous post.”
You are equivocating. I know I broke a promise. You, however, have accused me of “screwing my users.” I have not screwed my users. Screwing my users would have involved some combination of the following: charging for Leopard compatibility, immediately dropping support for free versions of the application, no longer providing a free version of the application, providing no facility for exporting one’s entries from a journal, and refusing to help users accomplish just that if they had not paid for the program.
Your argument is directed at a straw man. I am not arguing for absolution from the sin of a broken promise. I am defending myself against the false charge of “screwing my users”, the accusation you have made. Consequently, the points you make are moot. They are directed at an individual of your own, often ridiculous, invention.
Nevertheless I reserve the right to provide reasons for my decision even if I personally believe that the decision cannot be justified. I have stated that the decision is the right one, and given my goals and options I strongly believe it is the most fitting. But I am not claiming it is just. I am making it and I am providing the best reasons I can offer — not a rationalization or justification, another common equivocation — in the hope that others will understand it.
I would like to address a single issue you raise, your call to open source and paid support.
a. You have a faith in the ability of open source that I do not possess. And a leap of faith it is to hand over a project with a not insignificant learning curve to a uncertain group of part time developers. Many open source projects succeed. Many die quick, quiet deaths. It is a risk I decided against.
b. As I’ve stated before, I have a vision I would like to see realized. Concrete goals, a clear direction, call it what you will. I believe a commitment greater than that permitted by a full time job is necessary to see it through. And I believe centralized, dictated even, high level decision making is required of it. Popular small to mid sized open source projects that do succeed can meander. Another risk I decided against.
c. I have opted for a business model that necessitates a full time investment because it is a full time investment I desire.
d. I do not believe the business model you have proposed works for the market Journler targets, namely individual users. A few schools have adopted Journler. Fewer businesses. Income from those operations alone would not sustain me. And I very much doubt a significant portion of individual users would opt to purchase user support from a free, open source application with a strong user community that can already help with many of their problems.
e. I have opted for a business model that sees more of my time dedicated to coding rather than user support. Because that’s what I do! Your recommendation would have me teasing my own project from a distance while I primarily handle support cases. I am a coder, not a customer service representative. I aim to earn my livelihood from creative design and problem solving endeavors.
“You can call me names …”
Need I remind you who made the accusation that set this discussion off? I “screw my users”. Much worse than anything I’ve suggested of you. If I’ve called you anything I have called you ignorant, and nothing you’ve said about software development in a project of this nature leads me to believe the case is otherwise.
“None of this changes the fact that you broke a very explicit, very clear promise to keep your program freeware, and caused harm to people who believed you.”
I know. You don’t think I know!? For the love of God read my own words on the forum, in earlier versions of the help files, on the blog! But if for a second you accuse me of screwing my users I will respond and it will be ugly if it has to be. Them’s fighting words.
June 11th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I can certainly take back, and apologize for using the word “screw”. I suppose you are sensitive to the implication that you had intended all along to change licensing, and used freeware version only to lure users in a “bait and switch” scheme. I do not believe that is the case. I used that word from a user perspective, meaning that’s how the users would feel, and not in the sense that you intended to cheat them. (English is not my mother language.)
Thank you for detailing your reasons for not choosing the FOSS way. I don’t want to discuss them in detail, as my reason for advocating FOSS is not because its the best option for _you_, but the best option for your users. Yes, it would make your life more difficult, maybe force you to make your living with other projects, etc. This is exactly why I felt angry about your decision (even if it is perfectly understandable): you chose the option that was easy on yourself at the expense of your users.
From this perspective, only a few of your arguments are relevant. At the risk of building another straw man, let me rephrase them:
1. J. might fail as a FOSS project. This would leave the users even worse off.
Failure (in the sense of stagnation of further development) is certainly an option for all models, including shareware. What will happen to your users if you get bored, or cannot find sufficient numbers of buyers, etc? I am not aware of any statistics that would show FOSS projects have a higher failure rate than shareware projects.
I suspect (but I cannot prove, of course) that your perception of the chances of a successful J. FOSS project is clouded by how you would define “success”: a project that includes you, implementing your vision. Neither of these are as crucial for your users.
A fork, with the version that will remain freeware going FOSS (with little time investment on your part), and your future versions remaining shareware, would be perfectly fine for users. Then they could take whatever works best for them, or whatever they can afford. BTW, I don’t think you realize what 30-40USD represents in my part of the world. Relative to average income, it is like 300-400USD.
2. Future versions of J. will be better if I can implement my vision without the complications of a team effort.
Maybe. Yes, we all think we can do better solo than in a committee. Yes, we all think our vision is better. It doesn’t matter if the users have a choice as I outlined above.
I get the sense that you feel the decision you made was regrettable but unavoidable, possibly leading you to the conclusion that the motivation for my rather long-winded posts is “internet rage”, or a desire to insult. In fact, I feel that there is in fact a better option that could have been chosen, and still can be.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:23 am
I did not download and use your application when it was free. So I will try and buy it if I like the interaction.
Anyway, your decision would be very hard to understand and accept if I had used your application when it was free.
Beta testers cost. When you develop commercial software, the beta-testing stage can be quite expensive. I never download and use beta releases of commercial applications. I do not work for free.
Even if I firmly believe that you were sincere when you wrote your initial promise, I think that you made a gigantic mistake. You had dozens of people willing to test your software. They invested time and energies to help you improve your software.
Even if few people donate money, a lot of people donate their time. Not everyone can afford software. Few dollars are really few in the States, not everywhere in the world.
Did you ever think that if people desired to spend money they could have just bought a commercial application while your Journler was not yet reliable enough?
One own’s credibility is very important. I think that you partially lost yours.
Ah, by the way: I do not believe in free software. Software development is hard, people have to pay for it. There is always someone paying, it’s just developers wouldn’t say. Freeware applications are just a way for the software developers to train and test their skills.
thistle
September 1st, 2008 at 1:30 am
This is really a great product, and a good value for the money. However, the flaming entries in this blog do not look professional. Perhaps personal problems (attacks?) should be handled offline. The volume of text spent on one user’s unhappiness does a disservice to understanding the most likely situation - the developer is dedicated, and the bulk of users are happy - or at least understand the reality of sustainability in product development.