PDA

View Full Version : How about commercial software?



helzer
October 24th, 2007, 12:46 AM
I've been a Linux user for a few years now and enjoy free software.

The only little "problem" is, I make my living from writing and selling software. So, I use Linux to built it, but then sell it for Windows. There's just no way for me to sell anything on Linux (and I've tried).

What would you think about building a registration scheme for commercial software into Ubuntu? Something which would make it extra easy and safe for authors to sell and for users to buy?

I'd love to give my programs for free, but then, I'll have to look for something else to do, as I just live off it.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Amir

-grubby
October 24th, 2007, 12:49 AM
You could sell pre-compiled software, and have the source code available for developers

jrusso2
October 24th, 2007, 12:53 AM
If you have some good software to offer that fills a need people will buy it if the price is reasonable.

Look at CNR they offer some commercial software

helzer
October 24th, 2007, 12:59 AM
The package management system is what makes Linux so good for me (deb / RPM). Now, if that also included some standard way to purchase commercial software, I think it would let the real masses of computer users switch to Linux.

If you just look at what bothers the majority of the people, is that they don't have the programs that the NEED to use on Linux.

Making it possible for non technical people to buy commercial software, via the package management system would be a great improvement.

And, I can't share the source for these programs. When I can, I contribute work on open source projects and I do it happily (Rails, wxWidgets). There's just no way I can open the sources for my commercial programs.

Just my thought.

Amir

-grubby
October 24th, 2007, 01:03 AM
The package management system is what makes Linux so good for me (deb / RPM). Now, if that also included some standard way to purchase commercial software, I think it would let the real masses of computer users switch to Linux.

If you just look at what bothers the majority of the people, is that they don't have the programs that the NEED to use on Linux.

Making it possible for non technical people to buy commercial software, via the package management system would be a great improvement.

And, I can't share the source for these programs. When I can, I contribute work on open source projects and I do it happily (Rails, wxWidgets). There's just no way I can open the sources for my commercial programs.

Just my thought.

Amir

buy commercial software through the repositories? Why not sell at Best Buy or Wal-Mart or something?

Zero Prime
October 24th, 2007, 01:23 AM
Not a bad idea really. I would buy software for Ubuntu if I couldn't find a good enough free alternative. If you made game this would really rock:)

helzer
October 24th, 2007, 02:00 AM
buy commercial software through the repositories? Why not sell at Best Buy or Wal-Mart or something?

Because people like to get what they need fast. If it involves a nice trip to the mall, you can forget about it.

My average timeline for selling a program, between $10 and $29 is:
- Visit my website and read: 30 seconds
- Download and try: 5 minutes
- Buy online: 2 minutes
- Program is activated automatically and they're good to go

I also think that the big players, e.g. Adobe and such, would be plenty happy to create Ubuntu versions, if they can sell it without much complication and via the package management system.

I can just imagine a little $ sign next to the package, indicating that it's not free and a standard checkout procedure to turn it from a limited trial version to the full version.

Kingsley
October 24th, 2007, 02:09 AM
From what I've noticed, most people like a hard copy of software that they've purchased. Downloading can be hassle if your Internet connection is slow.

helzer
October 24th, 2007, 02:14 AM
From what I've noticed, most people like a hard copy of software that they've purchased. Downloading can be hassle if your Internet connection is slow.

To each his own. It's not a bad idea to also receive a backup CD, for an extra charge of $5-10. For me, the rate of people asking about this is less than 1%. When they see the extra cost, the order rate falls significantly.

Getting the program directly from the package management system is a great contributor to credibility (like the code signing feature for Windows). This helps people order online. Then, they don't ask for the backup CD anymore.

How would you like to get Ubuntu's upgrades via postal mail?

p_quarles
October 24th, 2007, 02:17 AM
Because people like to get what they need fast. If it involves a nice trip to the mall, you can forget about it.

My average timeline for selling a program, between $10 and $29 is:
- Visit my website and read: 30 seconds
- Download and try: 5 minutes
- Buy online: 2 minutes
- Program is activated automatically and they're good to go

I also think that the big players, e.g. Adobe and such, would be plenty happy to create Ubuntu versions, if they can sell it without much complication and via the package management system.

I can just imagine a little $ sign next to the package, indicating that it's not free and a standard checkout procedure to turn it from a limited trial version to the full version.
Putting your programs in the repositories would require you to make .deb packages for the various architectures -- why not just do that anyway, and add these to your web site?

helzer
October 24th, 2007, 02:23 AM
Putting your programs in the repositories would require you to make .deb packages for the various architectures -- why not just do that anyway, and add these to your web site?

because no one's going to buy. It's common knowledge that Linux (Ubuntu included) is something for geeks. It's free and includes a whole bunch of free programs.

Organizing the entire procedure will let people know that the community is not all about giving you free stuff, but also about solving your PROBLEMS. Not having access to the programs that you need, and might already have bought in the Windows version is THE problem for most paying users.

Kingsley
October 24th, 2007, 02:25 AM
To each his own. It's not a bad idea to also receive a backup CD, for an extra charge of $5-10. For me, the rate of people asking about this is less than 1%. When they see the extra cost, the order rate falls significantly.

Getting the program directly from the package management system is a great contributor to credibility (like the code signing feature for Windows). This helps people order online. Then, they don't ask for the backup CD anymore.

How would you like to get Ubuntu's upgrades via postal mail?
If that was free and I lived in a developing country with dial-up internet, then sure.

p_quarles
October 24th, 2007, 02:54 AM
because no one's going to buy. It's common knowledge that Linux (Ubuntu included) is something for geeks. It's free and includes a whole bunch of free programs.

Organizing the entire procedure will let people know that the community is not all about giving you free stuff, but also about solving your PROBLEMS. Not having access to the programs that you need, and might already have bought in the Windows version is THE problem for most paying users.
Well, no, no one is going to try a new OS just because a programmer's web site told them to. But if you offer Linux ports for your software, and the software is useful to Linux users, they will (through the magic of Google and keywords) find you.

S3Indiana
October 24th, 2007, 04:11 PM
because no one's going to buy. It's common knowledge that Linux (Ubuntu included) is something for geeks. It's free and includes a whole bunch of free programs.

Organizing the entire procedure will let people know that the community is not all about giving you free stuff, but also about solving your PROBLEMS. Not having access to the programs that you need, and might already have bought in the Windows version is THE problem for most paying users.Not necessarily. CNR.com (http://www.cnr.com) has Publish to CNR (http://www.cnr.com/supportPages/publish.seam) that allows Linux customers to purchase, download and install commercial applications. Check it (http://partners.linspire.com/publisher_programs.php) out...

helzer
October 24th, 2007, 04:24 PM
Not necessarily. CNR.com (http://www.cnr.com) has Publish to CNR (http://www.cnr.com/supportPages/publish.seam) that allows Linux customers to purchase, download and install commercial

Great, thanks.
I'm sad to report though that my little website has more traffic for the 2 programs I'm selling than the entire traffic of CNR.

Also, if you check the 1st, 2nd and 3rd pages of every category, you'll just find free programs. You start seeing commercial products way down below.

I'm not trying to be right or prove any point here. It's just a question of perception. If commercial packages can appear, and be purchased straight from the package administration, it would indicate to users that the community is endorsing commercial products alongside open source. Good for users and good for vendors - and ultimately, good for the community.

dca
October 24th, 2007, 04:33 PM
If you're not writing software for the enterprise you're not gonna' make a living... The proven business model, a'la Novell, RedHat, & Ubuntu is on the support side... You can charge either nothing (like Ubuntu) and sell support for the software or you can charge an up-front one year support plan for the product and get the distro like SLES & RHEL5... Same goes for MySQL, you can d/l & install for free but they're making money off the support because it's a lot less than what Oracle would charge. On the Windows side, if you're not writing video games I wouldn't know how can you get a pay check.

helzer
October 24th, 2007, 04:48 PM
On the Windows side, if you're not writing video games I wouldn't know how can you get a pay check.

Sure it's possible. Take a quick look at a well organized download site such as www.snapfiles.com. Click on the 'Shareware' tab and look around. The more popular programs on every category are the ones who also sell good.

Now, if the 'masses' were to use Linux, they'll be interested in the same Linux programs.

saulgoode
October 24th, 2007, 05:10 PM
I'm not trying to be right or prove any point here. It's just a question of perception. If commercial packages can appear, and be purchased straight from the package administration, it would indicate to users that the community is endorsing commercial products alongside open source. Good for users and good for vendors - and ultimately, good for the community.

It would also serve as an indication to developers and other contributors that their volunteer efforts were being exploited to the express benefit of commercial corporations. Ubuntu is already fighting an uphill battle in attracting volunteer developers ("why should I donate my time and skills for free when these other guys are getting paid?"), using the distro as a promotional tool for marketing commercial products would pretty well assure that no one would be willing to contribute freely.

I have nothing against companies trying to market proprietary products for Linux; but they should not expect Linux to do their marketing for them.

Crashmaxx
October 24th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Personally, that sort of software is the crap I hate the most. The only proprietary software I support and would buy would be games and large specific software, like Solidworks or Photoshop.

Shareware and other small apps need to be open source. Proprietary ones are just junk, it is very difficult to have them be bug free and truly usable with so little development. They almost never integrate with anything and it is really lame to try to make money offering features the OS should have anyway.

They are a large part of what is wrong with Windows. Anything that XP can't do out of the box requires another crappy app. You end up paying a small fortune collecting all these apps, they all have different interfaces and such, they all hog more resources, and half of them don't even work properly.

The way Linux works for this is much better. With everything being open source, developers can just add features to existing software. Or if it does justify a separate app, it can be made very small and can easily work with the rest of the OS. Best of all, if there are any issues with it, others can fix it and make it even better.

There does need to be something like CNR for all of Linux and that works well. Some things are very hard to make from scratch and offer openly. And when these things are needed to do your job, or are just for entertainment, commercial ports make sense. But small shareware style apps are mostly a joke in Windows, and there is no reason they should exist in Linux.

Its nothing personal against you. You are free to produce this stuff and make money off of it. I am just saying that for me and I would expect most Linux users, it is not something I support and I wouldn't buy them. So there is very good reason why you would have trouble selling this to Linux users. Its not that we are cheap, it is that we prefer what we consider a better way of producing and distributing software.

forrestcupp
October 24th, 2007, 05:54 PM
because no one's going to buy. It's common knowledge that Linux (Ubuntu included) is something for geeks. It's free and includes a whole bunch of free programs.

Organizing the entire procedure will let people know that the community is not all about giving you free stuff, but also about solving your PROBLEMS. Not having access to the programs that you need, and might already have bought in the Windows version is THE problem for most paying users.

You answered your own question. It would take a lot more than setting up some program to get this to work. There are many hurdles that you would have to jump. One of the biggest is that you would have to change the mentality of the majority of the Linux community. Too many people believe that proprietary software is unethical. Also, "the masses" do not use Linux. That's a pretty big hurdle to jump that's out of your hands. It's something that will take a lot more than "organizing a procedure." CNR has already tried that, and you have already testified about how much good that is doing for commercial software. To be honest, I don't think commercial software will ever succeed greatly in the Linux community because the community doesn't want it.

About the only thing you can do is compile and package your software in deb's and rpm's and offer them for sale on your website that gets a lot of traffic. You probably won't sell much for Linux no matter how you do it, so it's best to rely on Windows sales for your livelihood.

Henry Rayker
October 24th, 2007, 06:29 PM
It would REALLY help if we knew what kinds of apps you even write.

However, Crashmaxx put it really well in his post. Honestly, I call all of that software (shareware, even some freeware etc) in Windows crapware. I've called it that for years, and I will probably continue calling it that. These types of apps get next to no testing on various machines and have terrible support.

I don't think commercial software is, by definition, evil...however, the cost must not outweigh the benefits of the application. To be honest, I doubt there is much you could provide to the Linux community....the types of "PROBLEMS" faced are things like Photoshop (I know we have the GIMP, but a lot of people seem to have huge issues between the two), and some other larger apps...unless you are working on getting those apps to work under Linux, you're going to have a hell of a time selling much of anything....but if you can get those to work, you can rest assured that people won't mind the fact that you can only buy binaries...

I guess, though, a good way to gauge what you're talking about would be with examples of your work...but you should be warned that screen savers, little animated desktop widgets and dock apps won't be very well received...and won't be considered for purchases for $10-$29.....

helzer
October 24th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Thank you all for your comments.

I'm honestly not trying to promote my stuff. I'm making a very good living off it right now.

A sensible extension would be to the Mac OS, where users are accustomed to purchase programs they need. The standard of programs you get for MacOS is also relatively high, making it a convenient market to be in (mostly spam free).

Just to clarify, my applications are specialty tools used by professional photographers and photo shops. I strongly doubt that someone would be interested in creating open source projects for these things, as they require constant attention. Customer support is also very important, so just making a package and putting it in a repository is not going to be very helpful.

I get relatively small traffic (compared to games or screen savers), but very high conversion rate (ratio between visits and purchase), as people are actively looking for these solutions.

Some of my colleagues, who also create specialty software, for different needs also report the same.

Game and screen saver markets are quite different. They depend on great numbers in order to survive. It's not as easy as you would imagine.

My users don't really care what OS they run, and they certainly are not going to select an OS according to one application or two. However, I believe that if they had a really free choice of OS, where ALL their applications could run, they might consider Linux. Not in order to screw MS, or to make a point - just if it gives them a real benefit.

I'm again sorry that this thread appears as spammish.
I've been using Linux for about 10 years now, mostly on a full time basis. Where applicable, I've donated my work to the community. It's fun and helpful for everyone, but it's not always possible.

Helzer

Tom Mann
October 24th, 2007, 10:36 PM
I've always hoped there would be a commercial software platform on Linux, that could tie up the niches (and the gaming) on our systems.

Henry Rayker
October 24th, 2007, 10:49 PM
I didn't mean to sound harsh (if I did, indeed, come across that way). However, lots of the "I want to make a living out of commercial software for linux" threads are started by people who either a) have NO programming experience or b) make pointless little crapware apps.

Honestly, if your software is useful enough, I'm sure people would pay to obtain the binaries. I suppose it could help if the repositories supported this kind of thing, but then you would be limiting yourself to one family of Linux based OSes (unless you aimed to be in ALL repos, not just debian based...but you'd still have some trouble with Gentoo, given the way software is handled there)...

This is an interesting problem. I'm sure it could be handled some way, but I just really don't think the repository is a good point of entry (due to the fact that not all Linux distros use a centralized package management method). I think a huge key barrier to commercial software (one I haven't really seen before) is the fact that, in order to have full linux support (support of all or even just most distros) you have to allow compiling from source...at least at some level....

Perhaps you could do like some drivers do and have a single binary blob with a level of separation around it. The separation level will know how to interact with the blob, but will be compiled on the system, while the binary blob contains all of the key portions of the app...

Very interesting.

mysticmatrix
October 24th, 2007, 11:12 PM
Thank you all for your comments.

I'm honestly not trying to promote my stuff. I'm making a very good living off it right now.

A sensible extension would be to the Mac OS, where users are accustomed to purchase programs they need. The standard of programs you get for MacOS is also relatively high, making it a convenient market to be in (mostly spam free).

Just to clarify, my applications are specialty tools used by professional photographers and photo shops. I strongly doubt that someone would be interested in creating open source projects for these things, as they require constant attention. Customer support is also very important, so just making a package and putting it in a repository is not going to be very helpful.

I get relatively small traffic (compared to games or screen savers), but very high conversion rate (ratio between visits and purchase), as people are actively looking for these solutions.

Some of my colleagues, who also create specialty software, for different needs also report the same.

Game and screen saver markets are quite different. They depend on great numbers in order to survive. It's not as easy as you would imagine.

My users don't really care what OS they run, and they certainly are not going to select an OS according to one application or two. However, I believe that if they had a really free choice of OS, where ALL their applications could run, they might consider Linux. Not in order to screw MS, or to make a point - just if it gives them a real benefit.

I'm again sorry that this thread appears as spammish.
I've been using Linux for about 10 years now, mostly on a full time basis. Where applicable, I've donated my work to the community. It's fun and helpful for everyone, but it's not always possible.

Helzer

If your market is a specialized one, do like cedega (www.cedega.com) have done. Trangaming is thriving well, to my knowledge, along with Redhats and Novells.
Other examples are VMware, Maya, and almost all specialized scientific projects.

Just create .deb packages, and give it to your end-users. You really don't need a community for that, as specialized softwares have small number of people using them.

Advantage(or problem if you look from other point) with repositories is that they always contain latest version of available system, and proprietary software has vested interested to keep that away from end user.

For example even if Windows magically did something in Dec 2002, you will have to wait till 2007 to get your hands on it. Certainly not the repository way of thinking.

At very last, certainly Linux users are ready to buy software, when it means you really 'buy' the software(to a reasonable degree), and not end up paying 100 dollars only for installation media.

Also, community is not just helping, it's involving. In community, no one is owner, everyone is helper. You see why no proprietary system could ever develop a community, as in community there are simply no owners.

helzer
October 25th, 2007, 12:49 AM
Also, community is not just helping, it's involving. In community, no one is owner, everyone is helper. You see why no proprietary system could ever develop a community, as in community there are simply no owners.

You do know that most of the essential parts of Linux and open source in general is developed (or heavily supported) by commercial entities who do it for profit, right?

I actually thought how nice it would be if I could get some of the programs that I need on Linux. I'm not really thrilled by expanding my client base by 0.1%. Having said this, since I do like and enjoy Ubuntu and want to see it mature, if people would understand that they can actually buy programs for this, and would ask, and it would be technically reasonable, I would port my programs as .deb package.

S3Indiana
October 25th, 2007, 12:56 AM
Great, thanks.
I'm sad to report though that my little website has more traffic for the 2 programs I'm selling than the entire traffic of CNR.

Also, if you check the 1st, 2nd and 3rd pages of every category, you'll just find free programs. You start seeing commercial products way down below.

I'm not trying to be right or prove any point here. It's just a question of perception. If commercial packages can appear, and be purchased straight from the package administration, it would indicate to users that the community is endorsing commercial products alongside open source. Good for users and good for vendors - and ultimately, good for the community.CNR.com (http://www.cnr.com) is relatively new to the multiple OS distribution process. Using the Filter: Commercial Software can be selected to view just those products (for those customers desiring). Similar Programs on the product page Overview is coming to provide cross links between products. The interface for the client is being redesigned to provide the same functionality. Hope this better clarifies..

S3Indiana
October 25th, 2007, 01:04 AM
It would also serve as an indication to developers and other contributors that their volunteer efforts were being exploited to the express benefit of commercial corporations. Ubuntu is already fighting an uphill battle in attracting volunteer developers ("why should I donate my time and skills for free when these other guys are getting paid?"), using the distro as a promotional tool for marketing commercial products would pretty well assure that no one would be willing to contribute freely.

I have nothing against companies trying to market proprietary products for Linux; but they should not expect Linux to do their marketing for them.Fairly sure Canonical Ltd has developers on the payroll; other developers create for the joy of coding, but shouldn't all developers get paid for what they enjoy doing???

S3Indiana
October 25th, 2007, 01:07 AM
Personally, that sort of software is the crap I hate the most. The only proprietary software I support and would buy would be games and large specific software, like Solidworks or Photoshop.There are millions that pay Intuit (and others) annually for tax software....

Crashmaxx
October 25th, 2007, 02:04 AM
There are millions that pay Intuit (and others) annually for tax software....

Not sure what your comment has to do with the quote from me....

saulgoode
October 25th, 2007, 02:28 AM
You do know that most of the essential parts of Linux and open source in general is developed (or heavily supported) by commercial entities who do it for profit, right?

Not really "for profit", but because it is "profitable". That is, they receive a good return on their investment. By sharing their development under a Free Software license, they are able to benefit from the development efforts of others. Even if they are sharing a million lines of code, they are gaining access to 100 million LOC. The idea is to decrease the cost of development; which is somewhat different than the paradigm of developing a product "for profit".

S3Indiana
October 25th, 2007, 02:33 PM
Not sure what your comment has to do with the quote from me....
The only proprietary software I support and would buy would be games and large specific software, like Solidworks or Photoshop.Wasn't sure if you also included tax software (and the like) which millions use and rely on....

Crashmaxx
October 25th, 2007, 05:51 PM
Wasn't sure if you also included tax software (and the like) which millions use and rely on....



The only proprietary software I support and would buy would be games and large specific software, like Solidworks or Photoshop.


I'd say tax software is fairly large, and definitely specific. Although, don't see why it would need to be proprietary. The tax code is known to all, and the rest is simple math. I would imagine that being open would make it a lot easier to avoid bugs too, which is very important when dealing with the IRS. On the other hand, I'm sure its very tiresome and boring to code, more importantly, having a company to take responsibility if there are issues is important in this case too.

I do my taxes by hand, so I don't need anything like this. Really, I wish that all proprietary software eventually becomes superseded by open-source. Even games, the code should be open, just not the content.The stuff I would support as proprietary, is stuff that there is no open alternative, is needed or wanted to meet a specific demand, and/or particularly, already has a ton of development and R&D put into it.

The photo software the OP says he sells sounds like it would meet these criteria, but I don't really know. The stuff I hate and can't support is mostly referring to the little crapware apps that do a single small function, like change your wallpaper, or 'lock' files or other things that should be built into the OS, or just be a small package. Instead you get all these different buggy little apps, with different interfaces, each one has its own little taskbar item and take another lovely chunk of resources, and they want $10-$50 for it. That stuff is a joke in Windows and I'd hate to see that going on in Linux.

Like mounting an SSH drive. In Linux, yes you need fuse and sshfs, but these are just small packages that integrate with the existing drive mounting. Do they have their own taskbar items? NO, do they have separate config files and control panels? NO, do they consume resources more then needed to keep a connection open? NO, are they buggy and unstable and need updates that will never happen? Again, NO.

To do this in Windows, I need to buy some dumb app for $50. They have their own little interface and settings. More then likely have another taskbar item. And from what I hear, they are buggy. Wow, just what I want.:mad: