Payments – Why we make you type "$0"
blog.elementary.io
blog.elementary.io
>We want users to understand that they’re pretty much cheating the system when they choose not to pay for software.
Elementary's self-important attitude has and continues to completely baffle me. People joke about ElementaryOS being just Ubuntu + Pantheon Shell, because it is just Ubuntu + Pantheon Shell.
Elementry's Dev team doesn't pay for Ubuntu, they don't pay for the Kernel or GNU Tools, and yet they made the argument that the end user is 'cheating the system' when they download a prebuilt iso of a collection of free software for free.
If Elementary wanted to take the high ground, they'd introduce a Humble Bundle style payment system split between the various foundations they're building off of. Maybe the defaults would look something like 30% to the Linux Foundation, 20% to the FSF, 20% to Debian, 20% to Ubuntu, and 10% to themselves.
>We want users to understand that they’re pretty much cheating the system when they choose not to pay for software.
(Auch, reading that hurt; still...)
There they didn't say users are cheating for not paying them, but for not paying in general.
Also consider that The Linux Foundation, the FSF, Canonical... all have way bigger communities and visibiliy, and relations with big companies and other ways of obtaining economical support. Elementary depends only on their reduced user base.
> it is just Ubuntu + Pantheon Shell.
Well, yes. But they still put a lot of work into it. It rest on the shoulders of the GTK and Gnome giants, but they have still put a lot of work. Describing them that way isn't, imho, fair at all.
Apart from the Pantheon's surface, they've been working on libraries as Contracts and Granite GTK. I've no idea if they're complicated behemoths or ridiculously thin work-of-an-afternoon additions to GNU/Linux.
I think I would be fine with it if they had just mentioned "hey, our hard work depends on the hard work of this fellas, consider donating to them too!". Specially if really they are not making any profit as of yet, I don't think it's that bad to ask for the funding to continue your work from the people who enjoy it.
PD: I'm writing this from Elementary, which I use on two computers. In this one I ended up going back to Awesome WM, but I keep Pantheon on the other. I really like it, even if it isn't an incredible distance away from Xubuntu.
Although I'm not particularly wealthy, I'll consider donating a few bucks to Elementary. It is not the first OSS project I donate to, but I'll also consider donating to it's upstream.
PD2: I was partly playing devil's advocate. Even as an Elementary user, I didn't particularly like this post.
I have never seen a project succeed that tries to trick or guilt you into giving money. Making users feel like shit is bad UX.
Yeah, totally agree - no matter how much they do, their work is close to nil compared to what was accomplished because of GNU tools, Linux kernel work and Ubuntu specific improvements made over the past xx years before ElementaryOS.
It's like they are only in for the money, which does not sit very well with this kind of communities.
I think their work in providing a good UX for GNU\Linux operating systems is admirable and it's a very important step to really make something most would be happy to use.
I am not dismissing their work, I just find the attitude a little snobbish. Just like if you gift-wrap something and you take credit for everything that's inside. The attitude is just wrong.
For me personally, I did not see much more in Elementary than an OSX clone.
Lastly, concluding that asking money for your work (alongside providing free downloads) is akin to 'they are only in for the money' affirms my fears that I cannot even dream of living off of any open source software that I make.
It's wrong in the sense that they make it look they are making you pay for the OS, while they don't take care of the OS actually, and they don't give back money to those who make the OS in the first place which is the cornerstone of the cathedral.
It would be way more honest if they were simply selling the binary for Pantheon and charging only for that (close the a HTML5 template in that sense that it's separated from the base install).
I'm not against charging for your work, I'm against the attitude of entitlement they have as if they were responsible for the whole thing in the first place.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/danielfore/status/583810531766722...
Fine, that's his decision, but he does not need to make it others' fault to pursue his lifestyle.
Because saying that people who use FOSS software without paying are "cheating the system" is not harsh? You know, you often get the reaction that you deserve.
With that said, according to elementary a good part of the donations they receive goes towards bug bounties, which are not limited to elementary OS itself but are also assigned to upstream projects.
Without getting hung up on phrases like "cheating the system", which is admittedly poor wording, I do agree with the base premise of their blog post: open source development has to be sustainable and they have chosen to ask the users directly for a contribution.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I think this is also misleading, as they haven't produced an entire operating system so far as I can tell.
They're entitled to charge what they like. Unfortunately for them, everyone else is entitled to redistribute for nothing.
This attitude is why we don't see Linux startups -- just volunteer efforts, run on peoples spare time that they eventually get burnt out on and give up.
They are asking for $10. They aren't asking for a huge sum of money. $10 could be a very reasonable amount of money for the effort they've put into it.
Yes, it's built on free software... but when I (and many other people too) build their start up on free software and charge money.. we don't ask how much of that is going to Nginx, Linux, etc... we say, they're charging for the time/effort required to build that service.
And just like how many startups would be forced to charge higher prices if they had to redevelop nginx, etc... elementaryOS wouldn't be $10 if they had to duplicate all of that work.
Unless one hits jackpot a la RedHat, or is doing consulting/teaching/web paywalls, open source seldom pays bills.
And I hope you can appreciate how demeaning it is to call your time contributing to open source a "phase".
I still work with open source tools and do contribute occasionally with bug reports, bug fixes, advocacy and money.
Just don't believe any longer that all types of business are possible with open source. Many just don't go along with it, at least for those that want to their their bills.
But sadly this isn't true in the real world. When I think of a Chef I think of a great cook, someone who doesn't need someone else to tell them how to mix ingredients. It's a disservice to the chef to go and waste their time at McDonalds, but it's pretty rare you become successful a la Gordon Ramsey or something.
It's not a very smart decision to put all that time and effort into learning to be a master chef just to throw it away at some corporate place where no one appreciates you.
But hey if you need the money and your food isn't all that great anyway...
It's a matter of marketing. Everyone knows it's based on Ubuntu, so they feel cheated when they're asked to pay for a free OS.
A marketing solution is to sell it as:
* base system $0 - VM with free download, no whines about "cheating". And the base VM gets you an Ubuntu image which boots to a shell prompt.
* Elementary additions: $$. The base system plus our less-filling, weight-loss inducing proprietary magic!
People are happy to pay money for linux application. Not many people, and for not a lot of money. But people do pay.
Having happy paying customers is a lot better than calling your potential customer base "cheaters". That's just stupid .
The point is right now, they are asking people to pay for a free version of Ubuntu. This annoys people.
They should change their pricing model to make it clear that the base OS is free. And that their additions are a product which should be paid for.
Easy point-and-click installer: $$.
What are you talking about? A startup that sells Linux distros? There are A LOT more reasons we don't see people selling Linux distros than just this.
So what does this have to do with anything?
If your argument is that people don't use Linux in the start up world that's wrong too. Plenty of start ups use Linux and I'd say it's about 50/50 when it comes to share between OS X and Linux. We already know from stack overflow surveys that OS X and Linux are neck-and-neck when it comes to developer use, and we already know that Linux is almost always the choice when it comes to servers for start-ups.
Is your argument that people don't want to buy Linux software? There are plenty of people paying for Linux software (especially enterprise) and you can just look at the humble bundle for evidence that Linux users are more than willing to pay for software. I don't know many Mac only start-ups that are very successful.
> Elementry's Dev team doesn't pay for Ubuntu,
So?
> they don't pay for the Kernel or GNU Tools,
And? People get paid to work on both. Some people do it pro bono. They don't expect to be paid.
> 'cheating the system' when they download a prebuilt iso of a collection of free software for free.
Totally not true. There is a lot of refinement in the UX. If it's so easy, why is the distribution so special? Why don't you just whip up a bash script and send them out of business?
Even if they just combined Open Source works, they have every right to flip the combination (which takes time and skill) at a value. If you package something for me that saves my 10 developers a day each of config time - I just saved thousands of dollars.
http://www.reddit.com/r/elementaryos/comments/23v9o9/element...
Yet they want you to donate.
Are you aware that they just may want to be able to have a part or full time job doing software?
What do you expect them to have? A trust fund from their parents and they just give you free stuff?
> Stickers and shirts.
Serious? The gap of money they'd keep to feed themselves from that - plus the extra labor (distraction from improving the code).
I think you mean well, but here and other commenters seem to view GPL more as a right to pirate legally.
Who is the real freeloader, the guy who is very happy with [software]" and can't pay without foaming at the mouth, or someone who actually developed a created work in the first place*.
The insensitivity and entitlement is mind-boggling, from my perspective as a coder.
I am, like people from KDE or Gnome or whichever WM out there. You still don't see them being smug about donations. Oh and elementary guys don't even want to call it a donation. They've built their distribution on top of GPL software and they think you should pay for what they did, not donate. Quote from the comments section from that article: ======================== Cassidy James Mod Andrew Sauder • 3 months ago
We never use the word "donate." That's kind of a the core idea; we're not saying, "here's this free thing, donate if you want."
We're saying, "We've poured time and money into making this thing, and we think it has value." You get to choose how much you value it, or, if you can't afford it, that's okay too. ======================== If anyone is a pirate (oh the irony of calling someone who uses gpl a pirate) here it's them.
>Serious? The gap of money they'd keep to feed themselves from that - plus the extra labor (distraction from improving the code). Then why are they even selling the wares? You make it sound like they are losing money on that stuff as if the developer is packing my shirt. If you read the comment that I linked you would see that the shop is web team's responsibility.
>commenters seem to view GPL more as a right to pirate legally. I think that if Richard Stallman were to read this it would make him sad.
Neither Canonical, the kernel developers nor FSF demands you pay them money for Ubuntu, Linux or GNU Tools. Nor do they oppose making money from software. Even their own software.
> and yet they made the argument that the end user is 'cheating the system' when they download a prebuilt iso of a collection of free software for free.
If they want to be paid money for free ( as in freedom ) software they have the right to demand it. I see no moral problem with this. They may be delusional, but not immoral.
Basing their wording on the huge development cost of the entire work, rather than what they're adding, seems misleading to me since what they're adding is a tiny proportion of the entire cost they're referring to; yet they seem to want to take the money as justified by the entire cost.
That's not to say that Elementary OS developers aren't adding value. Clearly they are if users are downloading from them, and it's fine to ask users to pay for that.
- were payed to work on GNU/Linux by their employers
- had a different source of income
- were students with their parents paying for their bills
- were building a portfolio for a job change
So money did change hands, even if indirectly.
While one company may pay its employees to write code for the Linux kernel, that company is still writing the code and contributing it to Linux for free.
Though, not directly related to their payment model, I wish they would more clearly state that they're a Linux distribution based on Ubuntu. I couldn't "quickly" find any info on it anywhere on their site, so I had to find out from Wikipedia. I guess this has something to do with their target audience, and the way the sell this as an alternative to Windows or OS X.
Somewhat related to their payment model, I would very much like to see them contribute some of what they're making back to Ubuntu/Debian, if they don't already.
You know it has value. You just spent a thousand words explaining why you think people should pay money for your thing. There's an easy way to get them to do that: Charge money for your thing.
No need to guilt anybody. No need to apologize. You built an entire operating system. Those cost money. Give your users the option of paying you, not using your thing, or (if you absolutely can't detach yourself from this irrational need to give your work away for free) building it from source.
Also: they build a set of desktop apps for Ubuntu and did some other polishing work. Not to say that isn't hard and important work, but it also isn't "building an entire operating system".
People with $10 in their bank account and the ability to calculate the value of half an hour of their time will happily pay to avoid fighting dependencies to compile this thing from source. The angry entitled people commenting on this poor guy's blog can download the source for free.
(And to your edit, people who think that there is not $10 of value added can simply not install it.)
Everybody wins.
The fully-correct-and-flexible answer is, sadly, the Microsoft-like enterprisey one: to have a user account and charge the user for a multi-seat license to the software, which provides a product key entered during the installation. That way, you can reuse the same installation image as much as you want, but each activation has a cost.
But the important part is that everyone you gave any source or binaries to has the right of redistribution
And now it's too far - you're trying to bankrupt people who aren't big corporations in big suits - but people who felt humble, artistic passion. You think you can act like a mob to crush their dream and gut it out.
This is another example of people swarming like locusts because they fail to understand that other people have mortgages to pay too.
Taken further, the license that Linux falls under makes like all the more miserable for providing your own value and creativity. GPL is truly a minefield for commerce.
It was initially about access to the code that's running on your machine, and the ability to modify it - i.e. grant you control of what happens on your hardware. But it was always also about sharing with each other, for free. That's been part of the RMS and GNU thing since the beginning. It's not a fallacy, nor is it a deception.
>> And now it's too far - you're trying to ...
I'm not sure why you're accusing me of anything, I've never even used this product, let alone given it out to anyone.
>> ... trying to bankrupt people ...
WOW.
OK no this is just ludicrous.
The people that make this distribution had a choice - they could start a new OS from scratch, they could choose to base their product on something that would give them control over further distribution licenses (BSD), or they could choose to base it on GPL'd code. This was their choice. They chose to base their work on the incredible amount of work others have already put in to the Ubuntu (and general Linux) ecosystem, knowing the license it was under.
They have no right whatsoever, none, to now cry about this and your position there is extremely unreasonable. I don't get to take another artist's song, add an extra drumbeat and release it as my own without regard to the license of that original. This is much the same.
>> Taken further, the license that Linux falls under makes like all the more miserable for providing your own value and creativity.
It really doesn't make anyone's life miserable.
Basing your work on an immensely more massive body of work done by other people, and then getting arsey about license obligations, is not on.
And the GPL is not a minefield, it's a reciprocal agreement - you can do what you like with this, but you must preserve the freedoms you get with it and pass those on.
It's really very simple and fair.
So charging for GPL software (whether binary or source) is far from useless. Back in the day I often bought CDs with a Linux distribution on it. It was easier than downloading it when the internet was not as pervasive as it is now.
Having said that, I don't think they have a viable business model. Charging for distributing a Linux base OS, even if you have added your own changes, is unlikely to make a lot of money. They would probably be better off trying to find a niche and then do contract work to improve it.
It's incredibly trivial to spread gpl code now so charging for it is a non starter and just makes you look a bit foolish.
Having said all that, you are correct that you have no vendor lock in and people are able to change suppliers (including no charge suppliers) without any cost to themselves. As a supplier of GPL software, you can not rely on artificial scarcity to pay the bills. There must be some other reason for people to pay you (not the software itself). In the case of TOME, people are paying for the convenience of using Steam, or they are paying as a way of thanking the author.
There are other niches where you can make money selling GPL software. For example, quite a while ago I worked for a very small start up that was trying to build a VOIP infrastructure company. The idea was to enable new, small ITSPs to get up an running. We bundled and sold turnkey systems that was composed of free software. None of our customers cared that they could download the software for free somewhere else. They wanted a turnkey system that was configured and set up for them. They also wanted us to support their infrastructure so that they could concentrate on sales. The cost to us for packaging everything and doing custom configuration was dramatically lower than it would have been for them to try to set everything up themselves. Often they didn't even have a technical person on their staff. We could charge for our time and also charge for the software and it was still quite a bit cheaper for our customers to use our services. (As a side note, we unfortunately moved out of this lucrative area to concentrate on selling proprietary software without attached services. This ultimately failed, which I have often thought is a bit ironic.)
The thing is, I think I understand what you are trying to say, but you are making too general a statement. There are lots of ways to make money selling GPL software. However, you can't sell it the same way you would sell proprietary software which is why this company will probably not succeed unless they change tactics.
By paying a small sum you get access to precompiled binaries, some level of support and peace of mind that you are helping developers continue their work in a sustainable way.
Frankly I would like to see this model adopted more often in the FLOSS world.
It's Ubuntu (under the hood), marketed at people that wouldn't consider using a *nix OS.
However I find this whole guilt trip explanation in serious poor taste.
In fact, some good soul could get together the main actors (Debian, Ubuntu, Arch) and set up a shared infrastructure that will provide a common flow for this revenue stream (payment UI, merchant accounts etc), sharing fixed costs.
Revenues of WinZip Computing (WinZip)
2003 - $25,259,000
2004 - $24,928,000
2005 - $22,700,000
I honestly am very surprised by this. Does WinZip have any other potential revenue source that could explain this, or is it definitely from WinZip the software?
EDIT Joel's post above hints about enterprise licenses. That changes the equation a bit - enterprises have to pay, and it's very easy to get that money from them.
Revenues of WinZip Computing (WinZip)
2003 - $25,259,000
2004 - $24,928,000
2005 - $22,700,000
Peanuts?
http://www.reddit.com/r/PaidForWinRAR
;-)
I do contribute to projects I use, as I know how hard it is to live from open source.
(Also, I hate the word "donation" tbh. It communicates a sense of hopelessness, of misery, that is just sad IMHO.)
Software vendors should be honest. You want me to pay you? Say it up-front. You offer me a free version? Don't be surprised me, and most of others, are going to take it. Want to make the free version limited? Say it up-front, but don't beg for money.
Does any charity worker asking for money "literally" say "fuck you" to people? Honestly, I can't see your point. If done well, asking for donation does not have to be annoying.
> just like people switch from WinRAR to 7zip mostly because the latter doesn't nag
7Zip is free opensource; WinZip is closed-source time-limited shareware which nags once the time limit is reached. Regardless of nagging, users were supposed to pay for Winzip after a certain date from installation. This is why most people with advanced zipping requirements switched, once 7Zip became robust enough. (Regular Joes just stopped using either once Windows got good enough at dealing with zipped files.)
> You want me to pay you? Say it up-front.
Sorry, I personally have the opposite attitude. Why should I pay you if I don't even know whether your product actually works to my satisfaction? Once I'm happy with it, and you politely remind me that such lovely products don't grow on trees, I'm much more inclined to pay.
If done well. In terms of charity, I find that the "worthiness" of charity is mostly inversely proportional to the amount of effort they spend on direct marketing (I often see the same about businesses, btw.). If you're going to nag me with ads or stop on the street and ask for money while being obnoxious about it (certain environmental organization comes to mind), you can bet I'll be blacklisting your charity from the group I'm even considering to support.
I like to pay. I hate being tricked, guilt-tripped or forced into paying.
> Why should I pay you if I don't even know whether your product actually works to my satisfaction? Once I'm happy with it, and you politely remind me that such lovely products don't grow on trees, I'm much more inclined to pay.
Fine, but if you expect me to pay for it eventually, apart from politely reminding me, please keep saying up-front that you expect to be paid.
Maybe what I'm really afraid here is the slippery slope - once you establish that it's ok to "remind people to pay" in FLOSS products, it will slowly creep up to the point of being annoying, and I'd hate to see that happen.
It baffles me people like you can actually still think things like these are a good idea. I'm all for getting FOSS devs paid, but your post essentially says "why don't they just preinstall some software from advertising companies that will pay them for it".
I've tried Elementary a bit. Didn't like it. Sorry.
I'm using Elementary OS right now. It's pretty, but it's really no more polished than Ubuntu. In fact, it just mostly uses the same Ubuntu repositories. That's not a bad thing, but it's worth keeping in mind that Elementary OS is as good as it is because it's building on Ubuntu.
I highly doubt they're turning a profit.
The post (even with the edits to remove unfortunate phrasing) seems really aggrieved at the community's expectation that open source projects are by definition free as in beer. Reading the comments on that article, it does seem true that many folks seem to feel entitled to a free copy of this software.
This is part of the culture and the ecosystem, though. It doesn't justify being an entitled jerk, but if you're going to operate in a particular space, you have to understand the culture behind that space.
(And for those on HN stating "this is why you don't see entrepreneurial activity in the Linux ecosystem"...well, how much entrepreneurial activity are you seeing in the Windows ecosystem these days? I think the Linux attitude may foster rather than hamper long-term innovation, because even when the money moves elsewhere there's still that core group of people working on projects for love and passion rather than for money.)
These guys are doing some great work and it would really be a shame if it didn't continue. They are attempting to put together the kind of polished end user experience that Linux has never had. That's a good thing. It would probably be best if they could find another funding source besides end users because the Linux community has a pretty bad track record of supporting these kinds of efforts.
Not by the Linux Foundation or Linux users. They're paid by third parties.
It's like MS pays it's employees to work on Linux but MS is still doing it for free.
Yes, the blog post is/was terrible worded. That "cheating" thing ... Yeah. It was pretty bad. It's a difficult topic to talk about money in FOSS (for obvious reasons) and the blog post did it really the wrong (still does for me, but that's a very personal opinion). I'm also not really okay with the whole pay-before-download thing, but I'm really not the one entitled to make such decisions.
From my point of view, the whole idea was "people should support things they like". I completely understand some do not like Pantheon and think it's a OS X ripoff (I've seen people calling almost everything "osx ripoff", but there are parallels between OS X and elementary, no doubt). Therefore, these don't understand why they should pay for something they do not value. Totally understandable. But there are people who love elementary (even more than OS X, for that matter) and are using it on a daily basis. elementary matters to these people and there are two ways of supporting FOSS projects you are using: Contribute time (code) or money. There are better ways of shifting attention to this, of course. I don't doubt that ...
What baffles me nonetheless is how people view "us" (the elementary devs) for single blog posts and a few design desicions (I'm not talking about the website stuff, more about desktop design) people disagree with. Well, I'm totally biased of course, but there really is no vibe of "money grabing" or "entitlement" around the team. Most of us are young guys from all over the world coding on elementary in their spare time. It's a difficult thing to make money with a desktop-focused Linux distro and there is nobody really making money. Nobody's in for the big bucks. It would be lovely to employ some of the devs full-time, but that's simply not possible at the moment. elementary won't be the next big thing people throw money at, and everyone's aware of that fact.
Regarding "give money back to Ubuntu / GNU / the kernel", which is a difficult topic as well ... I'm trying to get my words right. Let's say, most of these things are in the lucky situation of corporate interest; Canonical is making their money via Ubuntu (server) support and server services (I frankly doubt they make a lot of money via the desktop), same applies to the kernel. The amounts of money elementary could provide to these projects / companies / whatever would show elementary's good intentions, but it'd a drop in the bucket. Whenever possible, elementary tries to bring patches upstream to benefit everyone. As Pantheon is building heavily on top of the GNOME stack, some devs pushed bug fixes and features to GTK or Mutter. We have some guys from Xfce, GNOME and other FOSS projects around to talk about our stuff if we think they would be useful for others. elementary is a really small project with only a few constant contributors, but everyone is trying to give their best.
Hopefully I was able to describe my stance without coming off as entitled. If not, please forgive me.
elementary does try to use its limited funding to support things outside of the project, for example putting out bug bounties for bugs or features in other FOSS projects that everyone would benefit of. And there was some money for debconf15 as well: http://debconf15.debconf.org/sponsors.xhtml
Just for infrastructure ? If not, how do you get paid ? And how many percent of the developers get paid ? Who makes the decision who gets paid and who doesn't get paid ?
I am just interested how something like this is done in an open source project. I've seen some other projects (not programming related) which got really complicated and ruined, because they got money and started "distributing" wealth which left some of the people disgruntled (basically most of the bands who got successful have stories like that).
Currently there is only one person really employed by elementary LLC (and paid regular), and that's Daniel Foré, the project lead. He quitted his job, but from what I understand, he earns significantly less than in his job before. Everyone else is "only" getting money from bug bounties.
I just learned about elementary today, and when I'm presented with the main landing page, I feel that it is being very dishonest in what it is actually selling me. I'm not arguing the value of your work, but I feel that the whole product is very conscious about not mentioning Linux, Ubuntu etc.
Give me a proper explanation about what you (the group of people) are doing that brings value. Tell me what your work is based upon. Tell me it is free (as in speech, and as in beer), and let me make a informed decision if I feel this is something I want to pay for.
Then they published this post -- and mind you, this is not the original version of this post (the original was worse).
With statements like:
>We want users to understand that they’re pretty much cheating the system when they choose not to pay for software.
...and...
>we feel that an entire operating system that has taken years of development and refinement is worth some money.
...when all they've really done is:
* Build a stripped-down Gnome-family derivative Desktop Environment
* Build a custom-skinned wrapper around GTK that fits their custom DE (and expect app devs to fall in line with it)
* Write a few super-primitive apps in it (a Rhythmbox fork, a notepad clone, and a basic email client)
is just a -bit- overstating things, to say nothing of the difference between a desktop environment and "an entire operating system".
Then they say:
> Most of the open source world is similar; Inkscape and GIMP only get money for development if users decide to give it to them.
without the slightest ounce of self-awareness to realize that neither of those projects make conscious design decisions to trick users into thinking they have to buy them. If I see a $____ box, my first assumption is that typing "0" has the same effect as typing "-1" or "aaaa": a validation error. It's a very close sibling of the "Sneak Into Basket"[1] UI "dark pattern".
These are the moves that turned me from a fan/advocate of elementary to a critic: not that their software was poor quality (the parts they had actually built were, for the most part, roughly as nice a UI as most other Ubuntu derivatives had in my opinion), but that their philosophy and attitude made them the kind of people I want to actively avoid promoting.
(Also, the shading on the payment buttons is so minor that it is very difficult to see which one is selected on my iPad screen)
Huh. That doesn't make sense.