Hacker News Reader

Comment by drummer | Hacker News Reader

>Now, people watching the screencasts will naturally encounter these “private” screencasts and if they like the free ones, they will sponsor me (at $14/mo.) to get access.

Why are we calling this 'sponsoring'? It just factually is selling a product to people for a specific amount. Sponsoring/donating is more like people giving money for something that would otherwise be free. Otherwise Microsoft could also require a 500 usd 'sponsorship or donation' for a Surface Go. And requiring it monthly is just plain subscription service payment.

View on HN

It is collecting money with an expectation of additional content in the future. So it isn't just a purchase. A subscription is closer, but sponsor adds the implication that your sponsorship is what allows the content creator to keep doing it.

Also, one of the dictionary definitions for sponsor is: "provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out)."

So it seems accurate enough of a term to me.

"provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out)."

So does a subscription or purchase. So not sure what you are trying to imply with this.

He gives access to stuff if you pay him money, with a promise of more stuff in the future. This just sounds like an subscription to me.

While I do agree there is a disconnect between open source dev payment and business, I don't think mislabeling a subscription as a donation does anyone any good.

we can argue about semantics but it's not really productive, imo.

He implies nothing, he states that sponsor definition covers the OP use case. Having more than one word to describe the same thing is not surprising.

You imply that your definition of sponsor exclude OP use case and there is mislabeling.

The interesting point is the revenue issue in open-source business. This guy solved it for him and present for all how he did it, with no lies and no hypocrisy.

That someone got hung up on a correct word usage shed an interesting light on where this disconnect between open source dev payment and money really lies.

That was my reaction as well.

He's selling courses using a freemium model.

The software is the inbound content.

I think sponsoring invokes a feeling of supporting an individual person, or small group. It says this product in of itself may not be worth $X/mo but the feeling of the buyer enabling a creator to continue their passion is what compels the buyer to pay.

Spot on. It's like they are discovering capitalism again from first principles and trying to cover it up with brand new coat of paint / terminology.

sponsorship != donation. That's why github chose the former. Part of the copy in the sponsor dashboard is even:

> You can set sponsor tiers with different prices and rewards

Reply on news.ycombinator.com