Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

> Better to license technology but maintain ownership so you can sell it again to others. And now that the risk is gone, the hotter the technology the more you can ask for working technology you can demonstrate. Of course this isn't possible in all technology niches

This is great in theory, but in practice it’s rare to develop something that can be passively licensed off. Usually it becomes a business that requires constant attention as it scales. I know a few people who have developed apps that sold well initially and looked like easy money, only to be buried under a flood of copycat apps as soon as the market realized the opportunity was there. The best success in cutting the cord seems to be building a company which is then sold off, but that’s hardly an easy path.

This feels a bit like the “passive income” pipe dream that is frequently touted in FIRE forums but rarely comes with practical, real-world examples.

View on HN

> Usually it becomes a business that requires constant attention as it scales.

You seem to be talking about the typical solo entrepreneur story where someone tries to guess at a consumer product, makes it on their own time, then tries to sell it? No, I was talking about contractors keeping ownership of the code, for example, that people are paying them to make under contract. Give them a license not full rights. Now you can sell it again. It still takes work to sell, and work to deliver on each sale. Just less than the first time. And you can ask more since you have a demo. To make early-retirement money it still takes being in the right place at the right time, recognizing that, and setting a high price you can get. The point is the system isn't rigged to the point where heads you lose and tails someone else wins. It's in your hands.

I certainly wasn't thinking of apps either way. I am only familiar with b2b markets requiring specialized skills (where I'd think contracting is most lucrative anyway).

> No, I was talking about contractors keeping ownership of the code, for example, that people are paying them to make under contract.

Great in theory, rare in practice. Usually when someone reaches the point where the code they’re writing for a company is self-contained and re-usable by other companies, they’re building a product rather than writing code.

Not strictly an app, but it’s still a product that must be maintained, supported, and sold.

I’ve hired many contractors and contracting companies to build code, features, or even products over the years. I can’t imagine a scenario where I’d willingly give any of them a license to maintain ownership of what I’m paying them to write and, even worse, a license to resell it to companies that are likely to be my competitors.

It's not rare at all. Any field where the company or person paying for the code has absolutely no ability to do anything with it themselves anyway. And frankly people tend to keep and reuse their code anyway, but I prefer to be honest about it.

Here's an example I did: fast linear algebra algorithms in C to run an algorithm on a customer's device. They wanted the high level algo working, not my matrix code. I used it in other stuff for a really long time.

One doesn't need everyone in the world to unanimously agree to one's license terms. It's fine if you're repulsed by the idea. That's a important flag when considering potential customers.

Before the app economy was a viable option it seemed like real estate or dividend investing was the way to go. But even then rental income isn’t as passive as people make it out to be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com