I'm in the crowdfunding business, so I feel strange saying this, but I'm really turned off by this model of 'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated,' especially when asking for a sum as large as is $100,000.
What happened to building something and selling it?
According to the campaign page, the need is so great because:
"We're asking for a lot of money, so of course you should know why. $100.000 means paying two people $4166 a month for a year, including all taxes, insurance and other fees."
I suppose people get what they pay for, but I find it insulting to ask me to pay your salary for a year so that you can avoid risk.
If you were truly concerned about online privacy, you'd build it anyway. So is privacy the mission, or the pitch?
> What happened to building something and selling it?
Since they are already providing it for free to those who need it, and producing at as free software, selling it as a finished product is unlikely.
> If you were truly concerned about online privacy, you'd build it anyway.
Many people do altruistic work during their free time. crowdfunding means you can do the same work, but not be limited by what scraps of time that exist after work.
The extremely few people in the world that would quit their job to do altruistic work is few. They are so few that almost every time it happens, it get posted here as news.
If I made a poll, asking how many people here cared strongly about something in the world, I would get close to 99% hands that said yes. If I then asked how many of those people would agree to quit work to work altruistic on that subject, how many hands would I see?
I have actually been working on Mailpile "altruistically" for a while, but sorely missed the ability to dedicate myself to it full time. Thus the fundraiser.
Totally get it, but why not share some of the risk with your supporters and meet them halfway? Asking for a full (decent) salary for two people for a year places all of the risk on your supporters and makes you look uninspired.
Edit: I can't reply to child, so I'll do it here.
It has nothing to do with a free ride. I don't want the product because the solution isn't right for me, but I would much prefer to pay a monthly fee for something than give a 'free ride,' as you call it, to a developer, in advance.
I have no sympathy for the family argument, because I spent a year building a business on the side while I was employed full-time, so that when I quit my job, I could support my family.
I believe there's something to be gained when the venture does not include a parachute.
I don't understand your objections at all. These guys are making a proposal, which individuals are free to accept or reject as they see fit. Those who accept it know what they're getting themselves into and accept the risk. No one is getting scammed. If these guys want a parachute, that's their prerogative. Just because you wouldn't take the same approach doesn't mean the approach is a bad one.
Point blank - I'm tired of people abusing crowdfunding as some sort of money grab (Spike Lee's recent Kickstarter as an example) and because I'm involved in the industry, I have a vested interest in seeing crowdfunding, as an industry, prosper.
These guys probably have a great product, and are probably great people, and for that reason alone, I feel bad that my comment leads the thread. However, I never said anything that suggested this was a scam, and I don't believe it is. Like I said, people get what they pay for. It's just that I see this trend getting worse, and I think long-term it will hurt crowdfunding.
I can see where you're coming from and I think that your argument would be stronger if you took your own feelings out of it. For example, you say that you find it insulting that they'd ask you to pay for their salary. Well, why should it matter to anyone else that you feel insulted? If that's your reaction then they're probably not talking to you. Besides that - why should anyone care about whether you feel insulted? You also mention that you feel no sympathy for the family argument because of your experiences. In this context, why does that matter? I don't mean this to be dismissive of you personally; I'm just trying to share my minor analysis.
You also say that you're not suggesting they're running a scam but at the same time you compare their outreach to a money grab.
I don't know, perhaps your arguments are very good ones and I am a heartless bastard because they don't sway me. At their root, it seems like you're saying that these guys are proposing something that violates your sense of fairness somehow. I'd be interested in seeing an argument that applies more universally, and not just that you personally find it unfair.
Myself, I think the cool thing about crowdfunding is that it's so open and free. I might personally find it frustrating or unfair that money gets allocated in a way that doesn't match my values, but too bad for me!
You make some great points, and I can't say that any of them are off-base. My comment is obviously filtered by my experiences in the industry, which might be unfair to the founders in question.
However, my comment seems to have resonated with many others, so could be offered as advice for ways to improve the campaign.
> I'm tired of people abusing crowdfunding as some sort of money grab (Spike Lee's recent Kickstarter as an example) and because I'm involved in the industry, I have a vested interest in seeing crowdfunding, as an industry, prosper.
I'm curious, what does "abusing crowdfunding" mean, in precise terms? What is wrong with what Spike Lee's request for money? I understand crowdfunding to be simply a kind of transaction. A banker's job is to facilitate transactions between people, not to discriminate in favor of the ones he likes.
Crowdfunding will continue to diverge into two camps: Kickstarter-style, curated and reputable, and IndieGoGo-style, a roll of the dice where you might get left hanging, or even scammed. Given that it is now trivial to roll your own crowd finding site, you can't make the latter go away. The best you can do in terms of perception management is to put yourself in the former category: "We're not like those other crowdfunding sites..."
True, an engineer could make twice as much, but discussing compensation rather than strategy might be missing the forest for the trees.
Why do the Mailpiles believe privacy is the best angle to help people the most in taking email back? If you were to work on only one thing to fix email, would privacy be the most important thing to work on?
The counterargument here isn't examples of specific cloud services like Dropbox that people can trust. It's an argument for general global security. Organizations like the United Nations Security Council and NATO generally provide a much stronger joint defense against evil than individual pieces of armor offered to citizens.
There certainly are engineering jobs at $150K and higher, but every survey I've seen -- and this more or less matches the offers I've seen -- suggests the median engineering salary here is just a little over $100K.
I could not disagree less. Asking him to "meet supporters half way" makes it sound like you want a free ride. No offense. These are adult guys, who need to support themselves and possibly a family. The software is already open source. And you want them to take even more risk although the Mailpile author has given a lot of his time to the community already? You seriously think everybody would be better off if he risks the financial stability of his family?
I think you mean, "I could not disagree more." What you wrote means you agree perfectly. It says that if you take the amount of disagreement between you and your parent, there could not be less disagreement, i.e. there is zero disagreement.
Ask for enough money to have say 3-6 months of resources, which would force them to figure out pricing/business economics before the money runs out, and forces them to invest in the idea as much as their backers do.
First reaction for me was: 'Wow, this is awesome, and I'm looking for something like this. How much do they need? Wow, 100k to build a mail app? No thanks.'
I get that this is a free product and is open source, but I'd like to know what they plan to do after the 100k is gone? Instead of a proposal a) pay us to work on it for a year, I'd like to see proposal b) help us bridge between now and phase 2, which is where we'll x.
I'd just like to see a little more thought put into it.
We have actually put a fair bit of thought into this, but the pitch has to be relatively focused. Publicly speculating about things which may change is not a good way to manage expectations.
One core question is: how big a team will we need in a years time to continue development? The answer to that depends on many factors - since this is open source, it is actually perfectly OK to work for a year, ship something awesome and hand off to the community once things are a bit more mature.
However, since we do assume there will still be quite a bit of work to do in a years time, our preferred business model is actually listed in the pitch: backers are joining a community and we will reach out to them again in a years' time and ask them to continue supporting us if they are happy with the work we have done. Mailpile has a broad enough appeal that it may be possible to sustain the team using this model alone, which would IMO be ideal.
However, plan B includes things like grants from human rights / free-speech orgs that need better tools for activists in the field, corporate support from companies unsatisfied with the current crop of tools, and subscription support services (like https://pagekite.net/, SMTP relaying, etc) which help the average Joe run his own Mailpile.
The majority of backers are paying $23. That's not even 15 minutes of software development time. I fail to comprehend how backers are investing as much into the idea as the developers.
Well I can say that being married and having obligations makes bootstrapping a company extremely hard. I know because I'm currently doing this and the added stress for me has been 5x what it could have been.
> but I'm really turned off by this model of 'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated
Um, you mean software consulting?
This model is beautiful. It's a bunch of email privacy advocates hiring a couple of skilled guys for a year to write the open source software we all wish existed.
Seems fair to me. I'm not so entitled as to demand someone altruistically create this for me.
And I explicitly _don't_ want them to make a business of it, because that changes the incentives completely.
I hear what you're saying, and I was initially tempted to feel the same way, until I caught myself.
I think your take on this is a function of our indoctrination into a particular form of capitalist mindset. We don't reward what's of value to society. We reward what can be sold. It's skewed.
In addition, there is this idea that we should be cogs in the machine as kind of a de facto life goal. Get an education and go to work for someone else. Want to be an entrepreneur and do more? Well, it will cost you dearly. You either go see the gatekeepers with capital and hope they smile on you, only to end up back in the position where you are essentially working for someone again (your investors). Or, you bootstrap and work your ass off trying to support yourself/family while holding down a day job. BTW, like you, I did the latter.
I think this is exactly why we don't have enough people using their talents to contribute something vs. just trying to make cash.
Society should encourage this, and if crowdfunding can help more people to pursue their talents/dreams (especially for the good of society), then I am all for it. We need more of this.
I don't know about that. I think we're having a discussion about how things are vs. how they could be.
I mean, why is it the mindset that we must endure some arbitrary and unrelated pain in order to pursue our passions? Isn't this part of the problem?
Is the need to make a living in a society that values only what is profitable really a meaningful test of one's mettle or determination? Am I more ready to pursue my business/project simply because I hustle and hold down a day job in order to eat? Or, am I simply distracted and spending only half my time pursuing my project, and therefore less efficient and less likely to complete it?
Our tendency to believe that one must struggle in the prescribed way to prove one's self is a product of that same indoctrination. It's just how things are now. But, what if more people could make a living pursuing passions and interests that benefit society? I think they would be even more determined, because it is their own passion/cause/etc.
Wow. I hear what you're saying, but I don't know why it's desirable to weed people out in such an unrelated, arbitrary fashion. I mean, that's not much different than saying we should line up would-be competitors and beat them with sticks. The last ten standing obviously want it bad enough, and so, get a chance to compete.
To your point, competition might indeed be greater, but that would be a good thing. Why would we want to stifle access and opportunity? Everyone would still have to bring their A-games and compete against others who are presumably now also able to focus on their passions. So, with focus and dedication, everyone's A-games just get better. Everyone benefits, including consumers, stakeholders, other beneficiaries, and society.
But, what you seem to be suggesting is that we continue to insist that only those who run the gauntlet and/or get by the gatekeepers get a shot. There could be some extraordinarily well-qualified individuals who could launch revolutionary businesses if only given access. To my mind, that's part of the promise of crowd-funding.
So, I have to say, it's kind of odd to me that someone in crowd-funding holds the position you're describing. Crowd-funding is supposed to democratize both investing and access to capital. So, "the people" decide what's of value to society vs. the same investor class. But, what you seem to be advocating sounds more like the gate-keeping and denial of access to opportunities that are the current norms. In my mind, it's hard to reconcile the spirit of crowd-funding with that position.
> I'm really turned off by this model of 'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated'
Isn't that the whole premise behind a huge chunk of the projects on indiegogo and Kickstarter? "I want to make a cool thing, but I can't afford to quit my day job; please pay me up front"?
I mean, I'm truly concerned about online privacy, but there are several barriers standing between me and my solution--not the least of which is the ability to eat and shield myself from the elements while crafting said solution. How is what these folks are asking any different from pitching a business plan to a VC? Sure, if you're going to a VC it's expected you'll actually have a business plan, but the function is the same: Convince people with resources that what you're doing is worthwhile and achievable, so they'll give their resources to you.
Except with VC, the money is given with the expectation of an occasional huge return. With a crowd-funded open source project, one there is no possibility of getting anything more than a program you could get for free if others funded its development. This is clearly a very different situation.
But as a crowdfunder, I know that going in. Donation levels are clearly marked with what returns, if any, I can expect if the project is successful. "Worthwhile" to a VC means "big financial returns"; "worthwhile" to a crowdfunder means "this cool thing gets made". It's exactly the same concept; how it works out in practice is just mechanics.
Actually, I don't think they are looking to build a business out of this? From the web site: "This is the Mailpile business model. As long as members of our community are willing to fund development (we will ask you to renew your membership in a years' time), we will dedicate ourselves to Mailpile and build the secure web-mail client you want."
This and the parent combined are the interesting bit.
So this is exactly the Richard Stallman model of software. Pay people to develop it, don't charge anything for the software and give away the source.
There is no economic incentive for the donors (they might get a mail program, might not, but they will never get their money back or a return on that money.)
I suppose rms originally imagined that someone like the mailpile people would take the money they were given to create mailpile and give it to some other developer to create the tools they need. However, as we see in this campaign, all the money they get will go toward feeding, housing, and insuring themselves. (wait till they learn about payroll taxes, that will make them fiscal conservatives in a hurry :-)
Like the parent comment I can see how this works in the "old" world (make a company, product, sell it, rinse and repeat) but am curious to see if it can work in this other way.
I don't see why would this be the "Stallman model of software", and not any of the other business models that don't involve selling users proprietary software or closed computers. In fact, rms himself has sold copies of Emacs in the past.
I called it that because I first heard about the model that one should pay for the creation of software but not its use in the "GNU Manifesto" [1] which Richard wrote.
'pay us in advance for developing a product that hasn't been market tested or validated'
The closest model I'm familiar with to what they're doing is the FreeBSD Foundation, so this is more classic "pay us for OSS" than anything else. So I don't think this is a startup proposal. Unusual for HN I know, but given the plan I doubt they're tracking pirate metrics or blabbering about pivots.
Which is sort of a pity because actually my problem isn't email (there is plenty of webmail I can deploy privately), my problem is group calendaring with multiple share/sync options (for which only Google Apps meets my requirements).
It's not all that thorny really; you don't get any money from your third party patches. The indiegogo funding is for three man years of funded development work split between two men. It's opensource so you are free to help out if you want, just don't expect to be paid.
I seem to recall a recent study that suggested paying some people explicitly for their open-source work (versus scratching-an-itch) had the effect of discouraging contributions from everyone else. Unfortunately my google-fu is too weak right now to find a reference.
Mozilla is probably the best example of paid developers plus open source contributors.
I've spoken to someone who worked there, and they agreed it was hard to keep the balance - if you start hiring all open-source contributors, then the remaining coders out in the open will get de-motivated, since they weren't offered a job.
I see it as a form of customer development. The days of building something and hoping people like it when you're done should be over. If they can generate enough interest to support the development they know they are working on a product that people are interested in and will actually pay them for.
What's wrong with taking the risk out? If there are people willing to pay in advance, then it's a better solution for everybody. It could mean, for example, they can make a better product as they are not constrained by living on their savings. I find it bizarre that you find it "insulting".
How is this any different from somebody drawing a salary while working at a charity? Not everyone is independently wealthy and able to just volunteer their time.
People will look at the app for themselves, decide whether it's a good value proposition for them or not. Nobody needs your bitching and moaning; if you don't like it, don't pay anything.
You're just demoralizing people for the sake of it. I'm disgusted that yours is the top ranked comment.
On one hand I agree with you, but playing devil's advocate - isn't this a discussion board, precisely the place where people would pay attention to such things? Applying your same logic, one could say "He's just expressing his opinion. If you don't like his comment, don't pay attention to it"
But on that logic, my opinion here would be fine too, right? So your answer "if you don't like my comment, don't pay attention" would apply to mine too.
But on a deeper level, your response equivocates between two entirely different things, i.e. giving an opinion on a board vs. paying for something.
My problem with the OP's opinion wasn't that he was giving his opinion, it was that his opinion was completely arbitrary. Why is it wrong to ask for donations of 1/2 salary for a year? Maybe the OP is jealous, but certainly he has no good reason.
On the other hand, this mail application seems to have good grounds for existing, and their method of funding is just a simple use of the market -- people choosing to buy something if they want it. There's nothing arbitrary about it at all.
What happened to building something and selling it?
According to the campaign page, the need is so great because:
"We're asking for a lot of money, so of course you should know why. $100.000 means paying two people $4166 a month for a year, including all taxes, insurance and other fees."
I suppose people get what they pay for, but I find it insulting to ask me to pay your salary for a year so that you can avoid risk.
If you were truly concerned about online privacy, you'd build it anyway. So is privacy the mission, or the pitch?