Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Jul 2012 23:06 UTC
Permalink for comment 527710
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-05-16
In the past I've seen stats from open source projects which mentioned that less than 1% of users donate to the project. That's not a lot.
There are a lot of stats, a lot of projects and a lot of percentages. For example, we could talk about Humble Indie Bundle 'V', getting more than 5.000.000$ from people who liked it. A better product is more likely to get money than another. But this discussion that I started was not about it.
The key is that if someone (*1) has the possibility of doing themselves the improvements (*2) or contracting someone (*3), it's better than not having this possibility. That's the key of that discussion that I started.
(*1) A user, a community of users, a company, a country, etc.
(*2) It can be a minor one, a medium one, a big one, etc. The bigger the improvement, the bigger will be the benefit for people.
(*3) It can be the original authors or some developer/s to negotiate the work with.