[Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Dan Shafer
A friend of mine pointed me to an intriguing business concept called  
"RansomWare" and as I thought about it, it seemed there might be some  
possible use for it in the Rev developer community. Under this model,  
a developer offers to produce a given product, sets a development  
price threshold for it, and asks people to commit what they would be  
willing to pay for such a product if he were to produce it. In one  
model, these people provide concrete evidence of their willingness to  
participate by actually paying the amount they commit to; in another  
model, they simply promise to do so when the product is finished and  
released.

Once the threshold is reached, the developer completes and releases  
the product free to the entire community. If the threshold isn't  
reached, meaning the community doesn't find the need for the tool  
compelling enough to fork over the threshold amount, the moneys that  
have been contributed, if any, are donated to a charity announced in  
advance.

References:

http://www.danielsolis.com/meatbot/ransom.html

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2002-November/ 
000979.html

Just an intriguing thought for a lazy summer evening.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Revolution Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
 From http://www.revolutionpros.com, Click "My Stuff"



_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Jim Bufalini
Sounds like Capitalism (raising money, investors, etc.) with a Communist
ending. :-) Except for  the *donation to a charity* part (people who put up
money, should get it returned, if no tool is produced, so that they can put
that same money towards another project, that is close to threshold) it
sounds interesting...

For example, I just requested a quote from someone to produce what's called
a Browser Helper Object (BHO) external for Rev. The price was a little steep
for me at this time, but if there were several people who could use this
now, and were willing to share the development cost, I certainly wouldn't
mind if it were released to the entire community on completion.

Seems like a way to get what you need now and make it available to others,
who may not have an immediate need, but may have in the future.

If you have no clue as to what a BHO is, you can see the definition here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_Helper_Object.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Dan Shafer
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 6:01 PM
To: Revolution List
Subject: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?


A friend of mine pointed me to an intriguing business concept called
"RansomWare" and as I thought about it, it seemed there might be some
possible use for it in the Rev developer community. Under this model,
a developer offers to produce a given product, sets a development
price threshold for it, and asks people to commit what they would be
willing to pay for such a product if he were to produce it. In one
model, these people provide concrete evidence of their willingness to
participate by actually paying the amount they commit to; in another
model, they simply promise to do so when the product is finished and
released.

Once the threshold is reached, the developer completes and releases
the product free to the entire community. If the threshold isn't
reached, meaning the community doesn't find the need for the tool
compelling enough to fork over the threshold amount, the moneys that
have been contributed, if any, are donated to a charity announced in
advance.

References:

http://www.danielsolis.com/meatbot/ransom.html

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2002-November/
000979.html

Just an intriguing thought for a lazy summer evening.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Revolution Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
 From http://www.revolutionpros.com, Click "My Stuff"



_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution



_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Bob Hartley
In reply to this post by Dan Shafer
You wrote:

Hi Dan

> A friend of mine pointed me to an intriguing business concept called
> "RansomWare" and as I thought about it, it seemed there might be some
> possible use for it in the Rev developer community. Under this model, a
> developer offers to produce a given product, sets a development price
> threshold for it, and asks people to commit what they would be willing to
> pay for such a product if he were to produce it.
> Once the threshold is reached, the developer completes and releases the
> product free to the entire community.

Thsi was how the firefox porting project was funded for RISC OS
http://www.riscos.info/unix/firefox/

there used to be a UNIX porting project that was a subscription based system
to port UNIX aps (well develop a X11 lib) to RISC OS.

Then one of the main developers partially ported Firefox and showed a
partially working browser. He started a pledge'o'meter, whereby he asked for
donations to finish it. Once the donations started to roll in he continued
to work on it with the understanding that it woudl be released if they
reached 100% of the pledges.

Now RISC OS has an up to date browser.

All the best
Bob
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Brian Yennie
In reply to this post by Dan Shafer
Dan,

I think it's an interesting concept, as 3rd party products are just
starting to gain some steam in the Rev community.
For the sake of discussion, what about something like this:

 > Form a group "development account" where those of us interested in
3rd party products can make a deposit. You are free to withdraw the
money later, within reason since someone would have to manage the fund.

 > Allow two things to happen:
        1) A developer can "pitch" a product to the group.
        2) The group can publish bounties for desirable products

 > Use dollars as votes. So say, if I have $100 in the fund, I could
commit $50 to one project and $50 to another.

 > Once a developer "accepts" a project, the votes (= dollars) are
locked in until either they a) complete the project or b) fail to meet
the timelines and/or requirements.

 > When a project is completed, the developer MUST offer credit on the
product to their pledge(s), but is free to sell the product to others
at full price.

EXAMPLE:

Developer X wants to create a web browser object for Revolution (we're
pretending altBrowser doesn't already exist for sake of an example).

Developer X writes the functional specifications and presents them to
the group. 5 members pledge $150 each, and 5 more pledge $50 for a
total of $1000. Developer X is now guaranteed to be paid at least $1000
for completing the project.

Developer X completes the project and is paid $1000 out of the fund.
The new browser object goes on sale for $100. The 5 members who pledged
$150 all get a free copy. The remaining 5 each get a $50 credit.
Developer X sells 25 more copies for $100 each and ends up with a total
payday of $3500.

Everyone wins in that both the developer and the buyers have their risk
mitigated- the developer has guaranteed sales, and no one buyer has to
fund the whole project.

Now, making "promises" to buy seems similar, but it seems to me this
would only work if there really were a real, physical account with a
visible balance of money sitting in it. I guarantee if 3rd party
developers could hit a web page displaying the available group funds,
submit a proposal, and watch the pledges roll in, they would step up a
lot more quickly!

FWIW, my 2 cents on an interesting topic!

- Brian

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Paul Looney-2
In reply to this post by Dan Shafer
Dan,
     Why not a capitalist/capitalist model:
1.     Developer or users suggest a tool/product & define specs.
2.     One or more developers bid to create the tool/product per spec. at a
specific price
3.     "Investors" provide the money and get "ownership" based on the
percentage they contributed
4.     When the tool/product is finished all the investors get free copies
5.      As the finished tool/product is sold, profits are divided among the
investors.

     We are actually doing this now - except the developer and investor are
usually the same person.
PL
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Eric Chatonet
Hi PL,

Le 19 juil. 05 à 17:05, [hidden email] a écrit :

> Dan,
>      Why not a capitalist/capitalist model:
> 1.     Developer or users suggest a tool/product & define specs.
> 2.     One or more developers bid to create the tool/product per  
> spec. at a
> specific price
> 3.     "Investors" provide the money and get "ownership" based on the
> percentage they contributed
> 4.     When the tool/product is finished all the investors get free  
> copies
> 5.      As the finished tool/product is sold, profits are divided  
> among the
> investors.
>
>      We are actually doing this now - except the developer and  
> investor are
> usually the same person.

It's the reason why...

Best Regards from Paris,

Eric Chatonet.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So Smart Software

For institutions, companies and associations
Built-to-order applications: management, multimedia, internet, etc.
Windows, Mac OS and Linux... With the French touch

Free plugins and tutorials on my website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Web site        http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email        [hidden email]/
Phone        33 (0)1 43 31 77 62
Mobile        33 (0)6 20 74 50 86
----------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

MisterX
In reply to this post by Paul Looney-2

This happened to be word for word my best economic model for TAOO ;)

I call it contribution economic returns on a free lunch...
;) Sorry, i jumped late in the thread ;)

cheers
Xavier

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 17:05
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?
>
> Dan,
>      Why not a capitalist/capitalist model:
> 1.     Developer or users suggest a tool/product & define specs.
> 2.     One or more developers bid to create the tool/product
> per spec. at a
> specific price
> 3.     "Investors" provide the money and get "ownership" based on the
> percentage they contributed
> 4.     When the tool/product is finished all the investors
> get free copies
> 5.      As the finished tool/product is sold, profits are
> divided among the
> investors.
>
>      We are actually doing this now - except the developer
> and investor are usually the same person.
> PL
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage
> your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

chris bohnert
In reply to this post by Dan Shafer
Just checked my handy copy of Jacques Pepin's "Cooking for Capitalists" and
thats the exact recipe for camel. ;-)

--
cb

Original Message:
-----------------
From:  [hidden email]
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:05:12 EDT
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?


Dan,
     Why not a capitalist/capitalist model:
1.     Developer or users suggest a tool/product & define specs.
2.     One or more developers bid to create the tool/product per spec. at a
specific price
3.     "Investors" provide the money and get "ownership" based on the
percentage they contributed
4.     When the tool/product is finished all the investors get free copies
5.      As the finished tool/product is sold, profits are divided among the
investors.

     We are actually doing this now - except the developer and investor are
usually the same person.
PL
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

see3d
In reply to this post by Dan Shafer

On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Dan Shafer wrote:

> A friend of mine pointed me to an intriguing business concept  
> called "RansomWare" and as I thought about it, it seemed there  
> might be some possible use

I like this concept.  The pledge model (Paypal cash perhaps) with an  
open accounting of progress towards the threshold.  A lot of people  
might put in a little towards the goal even if they could not see  
paying a lot because they would not get full value out of a tool.  
They would then have use of the tool for the little they needed it  
along with everyone else.  This would be great for the "inventive  
user" type who can not justify expensive tools for part time use, or  
to play with just because it is "neat".  Everyone benefits, nobody  
loses, nobody makes a killing.  However, I would put in the incentive  
that sponsors get the first version and provide the beta feedback --
everyone else has to wait 3 months after release.  There might also  
be a nominal charge ($5-10) for anyone to help support the cost of  
maintenance for the first year.  The model could then be repeated if  
a new version is needed.

I would not call this capitalistic in the slightest --nor is it  
socialistic.   It is pay what it is worth to you for sponsors and, in  
time, upgrades the tools for everyone.  An investment in the  
infrastructure of our tools.

Dennis
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Brian Yennie
In reply to this post by Paul Looney-2
Not to make this a debate, but...

What I don't like about the system below (and why I think it hasn't
happened already to any great extent) is:
* Investors will have to put a lot more money up for the developer to
give up ownership of the product to the investors
* Multiple investors "owning" a product and dividing profits is a pain
(and not so lucrative)

Rather, I think it's good to drive down the initial cost (so people
will actually buy in), and allow *someone* to have some real profit
potential, as I don't think a 3rd party Rev product split too many ways
excites anyone just yet.

Just my 2 cents!

> Dan,
>      Why not a capitalist/capitalist model:
> 1.     Developer or users suggest a tool/product & define specs.
> 2.     One or more developers bid to create the tool/product per spec.
> at a
> specific price
> 3.     "Investors" provide the money and get "ownership" based on the
> percentage they contributed
> 4.     When the tool/product is finished all the investors get free
> copies
> 5.      As the finished tool/product is sold, profits are divided
> among the
> investors.
>
>      We are actually doing this now - except the developer and
> investor are
> usually the same person.

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Chipp Walters
Brian, I agree with you. Especially about the 'multiple owners' part.
Having 1 or 2 partners isn't bad, but too many more and Chris is right
about 'the camel.'

But, that being said, I do think it can work out where everyone has
ownership of the code and can do what they want with it outside of
certain boundries.

IMO, I think the developer needs to at least make his hourly wage.
Hopefully, he'll make more with future revenues based on his code.

Overall, the concept of 'selling your idea' first, garnering some cash
support, and then building a product, isn't bad. Outside of the
ownership issues you bring up, and basic issues of trust, there is room
for this concept to work.

best,

Chipp

Brian Yennie wrote:

> Not to make this a debate, but...
>
> What I don't like about the system below (and why I think it hasn't
> happened already to any great extent) is:
> * Investors will have to put a lot more money up for the developer to
> give up ownership of the product to the investors
> * Multiple investors "owning" a product and dividing profits is a pain
> (and not so lucrative)
>
> Rather, I think it's good to drive down the initial cost (so people will
> actually buy in), and allow *someone* to have some real profit
> potential, as I don't think a 3rd party Rev product split too many ways
> excites anyone just yet.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

see3d
I don't think this was brought up as a way to create products for  
profit.  It is a way to finance upgrading tools for everyone with the  
primary programmer being paid a reasonable hourly wage.  Am I reading  
this wrong???

Dennis

On Jul 19, 2005, at 4:07 PM, Chipp Walters wrote:

> Brian, I agree with you. Especially about the 'multiple owners'  
> part. Having 1 or 2 partners isn't bad, but too many more and Chris  
> is right about 'the camel.'
>
> But, that being said, I do think it can work out where everyone has  
> ownership of the code and can do what they want with it outside of  
> certain boundries.
>
> IMO, I think the developer needs to at least make his hourly wage.  
> Hopefully, he'll make more with future revenues based on his code.
>
> Overall, the concept of 'selling your idea' first, garnering some  
> cash support, and then building a product, isn't bad. Outside of  
> the ownership issues you bring up, and basic issues of trust, there  
> is room for this concept to work.
>
> best,
>
> Chipp
>
> Brian Yennie wrote:
>
>> Not to make this a debate, but...
>> What I don't like about the system below (and why I think it  
>> hasn't happened already to any great extent) is:
>> * Investors will have to put a lot more money up for the developer  
>> to give up ownership of the product to the investors
>> * Multiple investors "owning" a product and dividing profits is a  
>> pain (and not so lucrative)
>> Rather, I think it's good to drive down the initial cost (so  
>> people will actually buy in), and allow *someone* to have some  
>> real profit potential, as I don't think a 3rd party Rev product  
>> split too many ways excites anyone just yet.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Paul Looney-2
In reply to this post by Dan Shafer
briany writes:
* Investors will have to put a lot more money up for the developer to
give up ownership of the product to the investors
* Multiple investors "owning" a product and dividing profits is a pain
(and not so lucrative)
... I don't think a 3rd party Rev product split too many ways
excites anyone just yet

Regarding point 1:
     There is no reason why the developer can't be one of the investors. Lets
say the developer bids a 20,000 project and the investors agree to this
price. Three investors invest 5,000 each. The developer discounts his/her
contribution 5,000. Everyone has 5,000 invested and they all own 1/4 interest.
     Right now the developer is generally fronting all of the development
costs and retaining total ownership. That is alright but some bigger projects
(brighter ideas) require more financing and this model accommodates it. Better
sometimes to own a smaller piece of a bigger pie.
     With this idea the developer has the option of surrendering as much (and
only as much) interest in the project as he/she wants or can afford.
Regarding point 2:
     Most of the most famous corporations in the world (General Motors,
Pfizer, Microsoft, Ford, Boeing, Nestle, etc.) use this model. Most large companies
are "owned" by many stockholders - and it seems to be working. Arguably, gov
ernments are "owned" by many taxpayers.
     An option might be to limit the buyin price, say minimum investment of
1,000 or 10,000 or ? This would be variable by project. Another option is to
limit the number of investors - again, variable by project.
Regarding point 3
     If the product fills a need at a reasonable price, why would the users
care how the profits are split?

     This idea, if implemented properly, would make it easier to create new
products that are too big for individual developers and too small (or
unimportant) for the Mother Ship.
PL
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

jbv-2


>
>      This idea, if implemented properly, would make it easier to create new
> products that are too big for individual developers and too small (or
> unimportant) for the Mother Ship.
> PL

what kind of products do you guys have in mind ?

Rev improvements (like libraries, Transcript extensions...) that
would be usefull to developpers ? in that case, some technical help
from Runrev would certainely be required... and I'm not sure that
distribution outside of Rev would be easy...

or products for specific markets developped with Rev ? in that case
advertising outside this list (to find investors) would be necessary...

JB

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Brian Yennie
In reply to this post by Paul Looney-2
> Regarding point 1:
>      There is no reason why the developer can't be one of the
> investors. Lets
> say the developer bids a 20,000 project and the investors agree to this
> price. Three investors invest 5,000 each. The developer discounts
> his/her
> contribution 5,000. Everyone has 5,000 invested and they all own 1/4
> interest.

I don't see how that would work. A developer can't just arbitrarily
invest in his/her own work without actually putting money down, or all
of the other investors become unfairly diluted.

I suppose if all of the investors were forced to agree to the
developer's contribution it might work, but how is that different from
just offering him/her a percentage of profits?

As I see it, you're just saying that part of the agreement would be the
developer's cut of the profits. Which is fine, but I think it would
work better if there was a standard process rather than a lot of
individual negotiations.

>      Right now the developer is generally fronting all of the
> development
> costs and retaining total ownership. That is alright but some bigger
> projects
> (brighter ideas) require more financing and this model accommodates
> it. Better
> sometimes to own a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

Not disagreeing with that at all.

>      With this idea the developer has the option of surrendering as
> much (and
> only as much) interest in the project as he/she wants or can afford.

That's fine- but it just amounts to reserving a portion of the profits
for the developer, which of course could be part of any agreement.
There is no need to draw it up as cash investment in one's self.

> Regarding point 2:
>      Most of the most famous corporations in the world (General Motors,
> Pfizer, Microsoft, Ford, Boeing, Nestle, etc.) use this model. Most
> large companies
> are "owned" by many stockholders - and it seems to be working.
> Arguably, gov
> ernments are "owned" by many taxpayers.

I see your point, but developing an add-on for Revolution doesn't even
remotely resemble raising capital for a billion dollar corporation.
Most very small companies are NOT owned by many stockholders, and we're
talking about something even smaller than a small company- a single
project.

>      An option might be to limit the buyin price, say minimum
> investment of
> 1,000 or 10,000 or ? This would be variable by project. Another option
> is to
> limit the number of investors - again, variable by project.

Sounds complicated to me. If we're cooking up new investor agreements
for every project, we're pretty much back where we started. We can
already do that all we want. What I was proposing was a standardized
process that goes through a single buyer group.

> Regarding point 3
>      If the product fills a need at a reasonable price, why would the
> users
> care how the profits are split?

Users don't care how the profits are split- the people splitting the
profits do. I wasn't clear enough I guess- I meant "everyone" to be
everyone investing in the project.

>      This idea, if implemented properly, would make it easier to
> create new
> products that are too big for individual developers and too small (or
> unimportant) for the Mother Ship

Agreed here! I'm not married to my scenario either. I would be cool to
see happen.

- Brian

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

jbv-2
In reply to this post by jbv-2


> >
> >      This idea, if implemented properly, would make it easier to create new
> > products that are too big for individual developers and too small (or
> > unimportant) for the Mother Ship.
> > PL
>

one more (rather paranoid) thought : to find investors you need
to advertise your project publicly, and since investors aren't
usually found overnight, what would hinder anyone else to
start working on the same project, or even patent the product ?

I'm not trying to be the devil's advocate, but I have that curious
feeling that this is the kind of idea that works pretty well on paper,
but not so well in real life...

please prove me wrong...

JB

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Brian Yennie
In reply to this post by see3d
Dennis,

Good point. We should probably figure out which it is.

I'll be totally frank- I'm much more likely to participate in this as
the "developer", and so that probably has everything to do with why I
would craft up a scenario in which I would have sufficient incentive to
participate in.

As a developer, I can already fill more hours than I have with my
desired hourly wage, so any project who's upper limit is to *maybe* get
me a reasonable hourly wage isn't going to be a top priority. It's a
start, but it's not a beacon for developers to jump in.

Truth be told, I WOULD make time to create tools for this community for
less profit than I would for some other clients, but I would be
gangbusters about it if it was also a good deal for me.

- Brian

> I don't think this was brought up as a way to create products for
> profit.  It is a way to finance upgrading tools for everyone with the
> primary programmer being paid a reasonable hourly wage.  Am I reading
> this wrong???
>
> Dennis

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Dan Shafer
In reply to this post by Brian Yennie
Brian.....

This  model isn't intended to apply to the concepts of "investors"  
who "own" anything in return for the money they put up. I suspect it  
works primarily if not only for software  ultimately intended to be  
distributed free.


On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Brian Yennie wrote:

> Not to make this a debate, but...
>
> What I don't like about the system below (and why I think it hasn't  
> happened already to any great extent) is:
> * Investors will have to put a lot more money up for the developer  
> to give up ownership of the product to the investors
> * Multiple investors "owning" a product and dividing profits is a  
> pain (and not so lucrative)
>
> Rather, I think it's good to drive down the initial cost (so people  
> will actually buy in), and allow *someone* to have some real profit  
> potential, as I don't think a 3rd party Rev product split too many  
> ways excites anyone just yet.
>
> Just my 2 cents!
>
>
>> Dan,
>>      Why not a capitalist/capitalist model:
>> 1.     Developer or users suggest a tool/product & define specs.
>> 2.     One or more developers bid to create the tool/product per  
>> spec. at a
>> specific price
>> 3.     "Investors" provide the money and get "ownership" based on the
>> percentage they contributed
>> 4.     When the tool/product is finished all the investors get  
>> free copies
>> 5.      As the finished tool/product is sold, profits are divided  
>> among the
>> investors.
>>
>>      We are actually doing this now - except the developer and  
>> investor are
>> usually the same person.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>
>



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Revolution Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
 From http://www.revolutionpros.com, Click "My Stuff"



_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Dan Shafer
In reply to this post by Brian Yennie
Intriguing twist and amplification of the proposal, Brian. I think  
it's important to keep the thing really simple and I"m not sure  
whether the complexity your approach adds would push the idea over  
the effectiveness cliff. But I like the way you think and process stuff!

dan

On Jul 18, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Brian Yennie wrote:

> Dan,
>
> I think it's an interesting concept, as 3rd party products are just  
> starting to gain some steam in the Rev community.
> For the sake of discussion, what about something like this:
>
> > Form a group "development account" where those of us interested  
> in 3rd party products can make a deposit. You are free to withdraw  
> the money later, within reason since someone would have to manage  
> the fund.
>
> > Allow two things to happen:
>     1) A developer can "pitch" a product to the group.
>     2) The group can publish bounties for desirable products
>
> > Use dollars as votes. So say, if I have $100 in the fund, I could  
> commit $50 to one project and $50 to another.
>
> > Once a developer "accepts" a project, the votes (= dollars) are  
> locked in until either they a) complete the project or b) fail to  
> meet the timelines and/or requirements.
>
> > When a project is completed, the developer MUST offer credit on  
> the product to their pledge(s), but is free to sell the product to  
> others at full price.
>
> EXAMPLE:
>
> Developer X wants to create a web browser object for Revolution  
> (we're pretending altBrowser doesn't already exist for sake of an  
> example).
>
> Developer X writes the functional specifications and presents them  
> to the group. 5 members pledge $150 each, and 5 more pledge $50 for  
> a total of $1000. Developer X is now guaranteed to be paid at least  
> $1000 for completing the project.
>
> Developer X completes the project and is paid $1000 out of the  
> fund. The new browser object goes on sale for $100. The 5 members  
> who pledged $150 all get a free copy. The remaining 5 each get a  
> $50 credit. Developer X sells 25 more copies for $100 each and ends  
> up with a total payday of $3500.
>
> Everyone wins in that both the developer and the buyers have their  
> risk mitigated- the developer has guaranteed sales, and no one  
> buyer has to fund the whole project.
>
> Now, making "promises" to buy seems similar, but it seems to me  
> this would only work if there really were a real, physical account  
> with a visible balance of money sitting in it. I guarantee if 3rd  
> party developers could hit a web page displaying the available  
> group funds, submit a proposal, and watch the pledges roll in, they  
> would step up a lot more quickly!
>
> FWIW, my 2 cents on an interesting topic!
>
> - Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>
>

_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Slightly OT] Ransomware as a Model for Rev Toolmaking?

Dan Shafer
In reply to this post by Paul Looney-2
Well, your model, as you point out is, sort of the way things are  
done now. I think the idea of ransomware was to find an alternative  
approach that would involve less legalistic stuff and more open sharing.

Clearly both models can co-exist with many others.


On Jul 19, 2005, at 8:05 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Dan,
>      Why not a capitalist/capitalist model:
> 1.     Developer or users suggest a tool/product & define specs.
> 2.     One or more developers bid to create the tool/product per  
> spec. at a
> specific price
> 3.     "Investors" provide the money and get "ownership" based on the
> percentage they contributed
> 4.     When the tool/product is finished all the investors get free  
> copies
> 5.      As the finished tool/product is sold, profits are divided  
> among the
> investors.
>
>      We are actually doing this now - except the developer and  
> investor are
> usually the same person.
> PL
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>
>



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Revolution Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
 From http://www.revolutionpros.com, Click "My Stuff"



_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
12