Xojo Plugin Crowd Funding Site

I have created this topic to see what peoples view are on the idea of creating a website to request / sponsor plugin development. The idea came about from this forum post:

The original post can be seen here:

https://forum.xojo.com/11496-i-m-not-updating-or-buying-future-updates/0#p84204

I personally think it is an excellent idea.

  1. Hardcore developers get to make extra money by creating the plugins.

  2. The Xojo community get needed plugins for their requirements.

  3. Xojo Inc. have software which caters for a vast number of developers needs, rather than being limited to those provided by the IDE.

A buying price would obviously need to be set before people started donating however, otherwise someone might donate $50, and then later find out that the plugin will cost $1000 and thus not be in a position to purchase it.

I think the way it would have to work is that the plugin developer would specify a “solution price” which would be linked to a set to goals specified by the original poster. Each sponsor would make their payment which would be held in a Paypal account until the “solution” is delivered. Upon the plugin developer saying the project is complete (the plugin developer would have to demonstrate this) then the funds would be released to the developer and the plugin would be released to the people that have paid for it. It would require some type of automated arbitration in that it would be assumed that the solution was complete when the developer said is was unless 50% or more of the payers voted otherwise. This would protect all parties. It needs some more thought but this would be the way I would think it should start.

Obviously a date would need to be set to specify when funding would stop (probably 1 month would be a default). If by the time had been reach say the funding pot was at X percent then the developer could decide weather or not to accept the work even if the amount had not been reached. Also I think to protect the developer, as soon as the solution price is reached then funding should stop and the developer would start work.

If the solution price is never reached (and the developer declines to do it for less) then all funds would be returned to the funders from Paypal. The project would then be opened for other developers to take it over or the project would just close but another developer could choose to clone the original project.

Their should also be a way when someone puts up an request for plugin that multiple developers can bid on the work and the a choice should be made by the original poster as to which one to accept to take forward for the funding stage.

ARBP is relaunching soon. An idea similar to this is actually one of our objectives. If anyone would like to participate as an advisor or help us get it started in any other way please email me phillip@1701software.com.

[quote=84219:@Nathan Wright]Their should also be a way when someone puts up an request for plugin that multiple developers can bid on the work and the a choice should be made by the original poster as to which one to accept to take forward for the funding stage.
[/quote]

There is a way. Start a topic here. Specify what you want, solicit bids. I think what you’ll find is that plugins cost a lot more to develop than most single developers are willing to pay for a one-off, and interest in specific things isn’t deep enough for multiple developers to cover the cost. Also, the talent pool of plugin developers isn’t very deep.

Countless times, I’ve had people write me and say, “I’d pay $100 for this.” OK, that’s nice, that just paid for me to figure out what changed in Xcode since the last time I looked and set up a new project. If 30 more people pledge that, I might get some code written this week. So more often than not, I just develop what I need and share what can be shared easily to recoup a portion of development costs.

Sorry Brad I dont understand what you are saying. What I am suggesting is a method where many people can sponsor the developer as you correctly say people dont understand that it costs a lot more to develop a plugin and it is often more than a single person can afford but if you had 10 people wanting to pay $100 for a basic plugin then it starts to get a little more interesting for the developer. I have been involved in other systems where this was done and it worked really well.

Just for clarity, I do realise that $1000 wont buy a lot but was just a figure to show as an example.

Don’t we already have something?
I coded a lot in plugins the last 14 years.
Half of MBS plugins are probably sponsored so someone not just send in a wish but also funded some initial development.

I fully understand that and I love your plugins, they have saved me a lot of time. But it may be that someone wants a plugin that is just too much for an individual to pay on his/her own but others may also like the idea and be willing to be part of the development sponsorship to get the plugin created. I feel this is win-win for everyone plus the developer actually writes what “people” want rather than just what an “individual” thinks they want which in the long run should allow the developer to see real licenses of the plugins. For example I would love to see a lot more plugins for web apps as I feel the web framework is adequate but a lot more could be done but I would not expect these things to be part of Xojo Inc’s remit.

I am a real believer that people e.g. developers should be paid fairly for the work they do as the ongoing time saving to other developers can be massive but sometimes as individual developers we cannot afford to pay for something on our own which is where crowd funding has been so successful in other industries.

Such as ?

Nathan, I don’t disagree with your approach. I just think the professional Xojo community is about 1/10 the size it needs to be for the approach to work. Or put another way, the money you could raise would typically provide about 10% of the incentive needed for a competent plugin developer to develop and support some desired plugin. I’d love to be proven wrong. But Christian’s model is the one that’s going to get anything done for the time being.

You may be correct, I created the post for exactly this reason to see what people think and also as I am new to Xojo to find out what is already available as one thing developers “generally” are not good at is shouting about the products they have created or how good they are at what they do so for newbies we struggle to find the good stuff.

I love Xojo but having come from a HTML5 centric development environment I find a lot of the time I am having to bend Xojo to do things that are common place in web development. As an example, the lack of easy to use client side processing, having to put short delays in places so that the client side doesnt get an error, offline applications that sync with the server when it comes back online, etc. At present I feel the WE side of Xojo is weak and part of this is due to the gurus not yet converting plugins etc to be web friendly. Please dont get me me wrong as I know we have WCC, Grafitti and lots of others who have done great work but I feel the WE part is very much the way forward but it often feels like Xojo is fighting every step of the way. I do caveat all of the foregoing by reiterating I am new to Xojo and some of this might be the learning curve but I have been involved in IT for over 25 years and do feel their is so much more that Xojo could do and thats Xojo and not Xojo Inc necessarily.

Bad assumption #1: The ‘plugins’ or ‘add ons’ have to be enormous in size or complexity.

Bad assumption #2: All who could ‘invest’ in MBS development for a particular feature wouldn’t prefer keeping rights to said code. This would be possible if others joined with them. This would take a platform/site/channel of some kind to organize.

Bad assumption #3: If the primary developer gets to keep the rights then they may not need the entirety of the development cost up front. They can continue to sell and support it outside the initial offering.

Well, for web apps, you often need new controls with Web SDK. That’s technically not a C++ written plugin.

And the initial cost of getting you a special private plugin to do something is normally much lower than making later the general purpose plugin with lot of more options.

OK, of course I’ve been watching some of the things you’ve wanted here. Let’s focus a moment on the entirely problematic WebLabel control. There is actually a lot I can do (read: “have done”) to fix and enhance this thing, but can’t share with other developers because it relies on hacking the DOM and the framework. For example, assign a larger font style to a non multi-line WebLabel at runtime than the style from design time. You get clipping because the framework only computes the line height at control creation. So let’s say I package the fix and make it available. The first user that posts a Feedback report remotely involving my code gets me chastised by Greg and at the same time expects me to solve their problem that has nothing to do with my code because Xojo blamed the issue on me. It’s happened twice :-). It’s expensive for me. What I do in my own code and am very careful not to ask Xojo for support is my business. When I share that code, it inevitable becomes my problem.

The demand-side for this fix does not cover those costs. Like I said, maybe 10% right now. And it’s not just “your fault Brad”, it’s “you’re encouraging user to violate the license”, which despite the BS nature of the edict, actually does add to Xojo’s costs when mutual customers can’t sort out what’s Xojo’s problem, what’s my problem, and what’s their problem.

[quote=84288:@Christian Schmitz]Well, for web apps, you often need new controls with Web SDK. That’s technically not a C++ written plugin.

And the initial cost of getting you a special private plugin to do something is normally much lower than making later the general purpose plugin with lot of more options.[/quote]

For clarity I am using the word “plugin” generically to represent a “third party addon” in whatever form it would take.

Your second point is interesting and possibly something you should promote more so that people have some idea what things might cost before writing of an idea.

[quote=84287:@Phillip Zedalis]Bad assumption #3: If the primary developer gets to keep the rights then they may not need the entirety of the development cost up front. They can continue to sell and support it outside the initial offering.
[/quote]

With one exception (Christian), this is a losing proposition for plugin/add-on developers here. That’s not disparaging Christian in any way. In fact, I admire his ability to make that work here. But selling plugins, add-ons, and services in this community is a good way to squeeze some extra cash out of investments you’d make anyway for your own projects.

Right, thats why the OP posed it as a community initiative for certain defined features. The emphasis is less on ‘sustainability’.

Your response is that there are not enough professional Xojo developers willing to work cheap enough to pump out anything substantial enough.

I’m saying thats a pretty negative outlook on the community.