undefined | Better HN

0 pointsGekkePrutser5y ago0 comments

Thanks for the reply! Like I said below to another poster, for me it would be a detractor when choosing a new app. For me it's about continuity. Especially in case you couldn't continue working on it for whatever reason, it would still maintain a lot of important data for me. I'd be more comfortable if the source was available so it could be continued if abandoned.

Also (also mentioned this below), hinting that there's monetisation coming up but not specifying any details, will put potential users off.

There's so many payment models you could go for, like a monthly/yearly or lifetime license. I personally hate subscription-based services, no matter how cheap they are, I prefer to spend a bigger amount once. Other people will feel differently, but by not saying anything you're leaving this as a potential concern in a customer's mind as the price and payment model may not suit them in the future.

One thing you might consider is open the source but not legally leaving it open, so using a more restrictive license. Electron apps are never really closed-source anyway as it uses interpreted languages. Opening the source doesn't really preclude charging for it.

I wasn't saying this because I want the app for free (even though it seems to be free right now?). It was just my thoughts as a potential user. I personally have a pet peeve against electron, and what I would be looking for would be more barebones and keyboard-oriented anyway, so I won't use it either way. But I'm sure it will fit the needs of many others.

Anyway not all users/customers are the same but these are just my personal concerns when I saw this. I wasn't aware of Notable. I do wish you the best of luck though and I hope you can make it deliver a decent income!

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

fabiospampinato5y ago

> Like I said below to another poster, for me it would be a detractor when choosing a new app. For me it's about continuity. Especially in case you couldn't continue working on it for whatever reason, it would still maintain a lot of important data for me. I'd be more comfortable if the source was available so it could be continued if abandoned.

Right, but if it doesn't make economic sense to put development time into the app in the first place you can essentially consider an app dead already. Potentially this may sound counter intuitive, but paying for closed-source software (closed because otherwise most people won't open up the wallet) may make the software you depend on _more_ sustainable than if it was open-source.

> Also (also mentioned this below), hinting that there's monetisation coming up but not specifying any details, will put potential users off.

How did you get that feeling? It probably happened that I didn't fully quality what I meant by that for the 100th time somewhere, but I tend to remember to write that the mobile app will be paid essentially.

> I personally hate subscription-based services, no matter how cheap they are, I prefer to spend a bigger amount once.

Right, I've heard this comment a bunch of times. So how much do you think you should pay Notable for hosting all your notes and attachments forever? Let's not even account for development time or anything else.

> One thing you might consider is open the source but not legally leaving it open, so using a more restrictive license. Electron apps are never really closed-source anyway as it uses interpreted languages. Opening the source doesn't really preclude charging for it.

Any binary can be patched, using Electron doesn't mean that apps are open-source.

> I personally have a pet peeve against electron, and what I would be looking for would be more barebones and keyboard-oriented anyway, so I won't use it either way.

Notable's zen mode is about as bare-bones as it gets, and if you try the shortcuts system in one of the alphas of v1.9 it's even better than vscode's in some areas.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse