Hacker News Reader

Comment by richie5um | Hacker News Reader

This was my feel too.

I doubt the author would admit it, but, I think a lot of hyperbole is due to long-standing "Mac devs" and the author's circle of friends and acquaintances being unable to sustain a living from (merely) writing their own apps. Which is especially frustrating for them as the audience has grown dramatically over the past 5+ years.

Sure, the supply has grown considerably, and with that there are more 'light, snackable, mass-market apps'. But, that's what happens when the barrier to entry gets lower, and supply increases.

It is a true shame when we lose gifted 'indie' developers and some truly fantastic apps. But, no one has a right to a living.

Interestingly, and perhaps a hidden message in this article, is that there are significant parallels to draw to journalism.

View on HN

So how's this different from Shareware in the 90's?

I don't think anyone then (i don't know for sure, because I know no one who actually put out shareware, personally) expected to get rich making software that spread like wildfire via floppy disk, but that's somehow changed (replace floppy disk with "social media"). I'd posit that the difference is expectations of grandeur that the startup culture (combined with pop culture) have created.

A few did end up making a living at it--at least for a while. But, right, it was a vanishingly small percentage. I probably did better than most and I still certainly wasn't about to give up my day job.

I think another difference today is that shareware, for the most part, was clearly separate and distinct from retail software. Today, the lines are much more blurred.

Kagi existed since the mid 90's at least, so it was easy to take folks money as a shareware developer.

The bar gets higher and people who aren't keeping up with the new requirements pine for the days they were able to - years ago the hard part was the technical feat of building the app.

Imagine how shareware might have taken off if easy payment existed then. The payment model was often dollar bills in the mail. Or international reply coupons, anyone remember those?

I had a deal with a local VAR (who also ran the BBS I belonged to) so that I could take credit cards in a pinch. But, yeah, I spent way too many evenings getting all the checks ready to take to the bank and stuffing floppies into mailers.

To your point though, I think the changing factors that would have made it much easier in many respects to operate a shareware business by the late 90s also led to a market dynamic where very few people were willing to pay for anything that wasn't nailed down. (This was always true to a degree of course but it was amplified once the mass market got online.)

> But, no one has a right to a living.

On the contrary, I think that should be a basic human right. But hey. Communism.

In this context though, the devs should change their strategy.

No one has a right to make other people pretend their app is worth paying for. Just take your dole and keep the line moving, comrade.

In context, no one has a right to make a living in the exact manner of their choosing, on the terms of their choosing. By principle of charity, let's assume that's what was meant.

> 'light, snackable, mass-market apps'.

I don't get this. What makes an app "snackable"? Like: "Ohh, it's so easy to use, fuck that! Cool guys configure their apps in source code and compile them themselves". I've never understood why people feel that instantly something is popular it must suck or be bad.

I could easily make a twitter app that would require you to donate $5 to a charity, run a mile and press a button 100 times everytime you tweet. This sure as hell isn't snackable or mass marketable. Am I now part of the cool kids club?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com