> What if the person does make decent software, but is a huge influencer?
Then they would probably be able to make more money selling subscriptions than other developers that are less known.
I don't know how different that would be though from if they sold physical products.
One important thing here is that there is a limit to how many subscriptions one developer can sell.
This is done to emulate physical products as much as possible.
Also, they would probably sell the subscriptions for a higher price than other developers, since they can, which would mean that people who don't know about that person would buy from someone who is cheaper.
> Why not opt for the Spotify model? Usage = money. Why turn this into a popularity contest?
That means there has to be usage statistics collection in all software.
Since the software has to be open source, that could be abused a lot, including removed.
I also don't like the idea of having any requirement like that on the software.
It would for example require that the software has access to the internet which doesn't work well for some software.
> I don't know how different that would be though from if they sold physical products
I mean that's the literal point of this website, no? In the real world, a sale is a sale. Imagine going into BestBuy, leaving $100 at the front, telling the clerk to put it all into Sony (because Sony is 4 cool kidz) and then just grabbing a nVidia graphics card and Apple AirPods.
> One important thing here is that there is a limit to how many subscriptions one developer can sell.
Definitely interested in seeing how this will play out. Sounds like a recipe for either (a) a super cool, tightly nit community with high quality contributers who care about their software or (b) a dump for software which woudlnt cut it in the real world market.
>Also, they would probably sell the subscriptions for a higher price than other developers, since they can, which would mean that people who don't know about that person would buy from someone who is cheaper.
My game theory senses are tingling. Why would I incentivize people into buying other people's subscription while gaining access to my stuff?
>That means there has to be usage statistics collection in all software.
You could always implement it on your end, right? Could be download based, or whatever. A one time thingy.
> I mean that's the literal point of this website, no? In the real world, a sale is a sale. Imagine going into BestBuy, leaving $100 at the front, telling the clerk to put it all into Sony (because Sony is 4 cool kidz) and then just grabbing a nVidia graphics card and Apple AirPods.
Ok, I see what you mean now. I think the distribution of who gets the money in 1Sub would be similar to donations, with two remedies:
- The owner of the paywall that made you subscribe gets a 10 credits bonus as described in [0]. This will lead to more money to the people who make the things that you actually try to use.
- If someone is popular, they will either run out of subscriptions to sell, or they will sell them at a higher price. In either case that makes it possible for the less known developers to sell more subscriptions.
What if the person does make decent software, but is a huge influencer?
Why not opt for the Spotify model? Usage = money. Why turn this into a popularity contest?