9
Froot
5y

I know this will most likely cause an uproar here but I actually prefer the products I use be profitable to the maker.

That's because if the maker of the product is making money on it (with a sustainable business plan) then there is a higher chance they'll keep developing it.

On the other hand, if the developer is working on it from his own free time with now monetary incentive then there is a high likelihood they'll stop when they run out of money or time or whatnot.

So all in all, a company developing a profitable product is the best bet for stability IMO

Comments
  • 1
    Agreed
  • 1
    Partially agree. If the vendor has a vision - the product has a future. If the vendor is only focused on revenue [like MS], you'll see new shiny features more often than bugfixes causing you inconvenience.

    New toys always look better to optics rather than admitting you've fucked up and had to release a fix.

    Bugfixes are not profitable. New shiny features are.
  • 0
    I agree when it is closed-source.
    When it's not, chances are someone else just takes over the code and continues.
  • 3
    @kescherRant well, if its a good product I rather pay a price to have the original developer keep interest than have ownership switch around.

    You never know if it changes goal or agenda.
  • 2
    I'm 100% with you on that. But I'd love to see free access for children. As a kid I would have loved to have a chance to play around with a lot of stuff, but my parents would'nt buy something for 100+ bucks for me just to play around.

    @kescherRant look at GoT, they took over and made some ******* out of it. They don't have the passion the original author had.
  • 1
    @Voxera Sure, but then donations are a nice thing :)
Add Comment