tldr is that you can hide the button that asks for payment and it says “purchase immich” instead of “purchase liscence”
Yeah, functionally it’s the same. However I think it is a big perceptual change to be in line with the FUTO principle of “we want to make good software that is open and accessible, but we would also like you to pay us for it so we can continue this project sustainably.” That’s a bit of a contrast with the general open source approach of “I’m writing this software as a service to others, make a donation if you’d like to support my work.”
Personally I think the move towards a more structured buy it if you can mindset is great. I’ve seen too many projects get abandoned because of lack of time and resources and then shift from developer to developer, sometimes getting better, sometimes worse.
Evidently there’s some difference to the approach. I’m not familiar with the WinRAR days, but they specifically address that in this video. I don’t know if it being similar to WinRAR is a good thing or bad thing in your book, but maybe you’ll enjoy the video.
Agree. But that’s how open pusrce is, for so many years. Until a magical model appears to keep the developers interested in giving time to it? But in the first place doing a foss project you need to understand what you are into. Monetize it after could be, if you want to live from it, but won’t be free anymore. Donation system worked pretty well for this . Don’t understand what is FUTO approach . Something similar to Proton I guess. So many people freaked out by privacy scandals, that made it a billion worth business. first with a massive amount of VPN services, some of them even from the same company and giving them different brands, browsers everywhere with same situation , then self hosting which it seems multiple developers are putting the eye on it as some fresh juice . And FUTO eyes specially
Privacy is a marketing angle right now for sure. I hate seeing companies like apple advertise to the vague privacy concerns of the general public. Companies like Proton are also making money based on privacy concerns.
As far as I’ve seen, FUTO’s approach is to fund and support independent developers who have a high skill level and well thought out piece of software. They focus on software that is Open, or source available for auditing and viewing purposes, privacy respecting and free of any kind of advertising. They also are pushing for a new culture of payment to these developers that is not a donation to support, but a purchase to use. They don’t insist on the purchase though, you can use any piece of FUTO sponsored software free of charge indefinitely.
So many people freaked out by privacy scandals, that made it a billion worth business. first with a massive amount of VPN services, some of them even from the same company and giving them different brands, browsers everywhere with same situation , then self hosting which it seems multiple developers are putting the eye on it as some fresh juice . And FUTO eyes specially
Can you elaborate this a bit more? Are the first few points about Proton, or in general? And I guess in the case of browsers you meant Chromium. Also I’m not really sure about what you meant regarding self hosting.
Except it’s misleading as you aren’t really buying it, you are buying a supporters badge key as I understand it. Might as well be selling an immich NFT. I still don’t think this is being upfront and it’s still a dark pattern it’s just slightly less misleading than the blatantly false buy a license wording.
Why do you think you aren’t really buying it? Is it because they allow you to run it without paying money for it?
I don’t think the definition of “purchasing” software should be defined by whether you can run the service without paying or not. I think it’s best defined as paying money for something that you like and want to exchange value for. In my book that’s nothing near a dark pattern, as I can’t imagine anyone being confused by it, let alone mistakenly believing there is missing features that they won’t get until they buy.
Buying confers ownership of something even if it’s just a legal agreement like a software license. No ownership over immich is being conferred, nothing is being conveyed to anyone so it’s incorrect to term it a purchase, much less a purchase of immich.
