Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
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. -
@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. -
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. -
@Voxera Sure, but then donations are a nice thing :)
Related Rants
Oh, so it wasn't that complicated after all !
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
rant
profit
mula
products