not sure i think this is a good way to fund their work BUT exploring models to make open-source sustainable for the developers does seem like a good thing, no?
not sure i think this is a good way to fund their work BUT exploring models to make open-source sustainable for the developers does seem like a good thing, no?
I have no problem with anyone charging what they would like, but I do think it should be mentioned on the homepage. It feels intentionally left off which makes me think the developers themselves aren't 100% comfortable with the model.
Yes, it feels scammy. Like you, I've no problem paying for software if it seems worth it. I've payed a few times for Highcharts (different companies) and I did gladly and without hesitation, it also feels that they're being honest about their business model.
This feels incredibly unfair and harsh and is completely unfounded. What's the scam here?
Not a scam. It just feels the same as a scam feels.
One time I had a couch delivered. Two guys show up to set it up. One guy says he needs a tool from the truck and walks off, and the other guy starts talking to our dog, and tells us how he used to train pit bulls, and starts doing some weird hand motions and yelling commands to our dog like he’s casting a spell or something.
I think the guy was probably just not all there mentally, like too much former drug use or something. But it was one of those surreal moments where red flags were going off in my head. I went to find the other guy just to make sure he wasn’t robbing us out the back. Because that’s what it felt like: misdirection, social engineering, a performance.
In hindsight, I don’t think there was anything suspicious going on. But the alarm bells in my head were still completely real.
When we see this “everything is an plugin” but “plugin details are internal-only” and “plugin detail is coming” and “1.0 is released” and “but we will have 40 more release candidates before 1.0 final” and “you could support us with pro” and “you dont need pro” and “we don’t recommend pro” and “you can build anything in pro yourself anyway” and “you shouldn’t use this pro feature anyway and should use CSS instead”, and then when people ask a question about any of this inconsistency, we get juvenile responses like “don’t use it then”, “don’t buy it then”, “fork it then”, “my time isn’t free”, and so on. Even though there is no scam, it’s surreal. Like, “is this really happening?” It sets off the same red flags in people’s minds, even when there is no scam.
Datastar seems very cool as a tool, and the developers seem very technically competent. The problems they face don’t seem to be technical problems.
I don't think that's a fair read of their intentions given how they talk about it everywhere [1]. Pro isn't there to paywall great features, but there to support the development of complex and annoying ones. The example of `data-on-signal-patch` that moved from pro to core speaks to how they're thinking about the project.
[1] Time-stamped it for convenience: https://youtu.be/eMIB4Bkl08U?si=IfTslvZoGXVbou0w&t=1270
I think most people are not comfortable with making money or talking about money. Also people who are bad at making money might be bad at marketing/handling this.
They're completely comfortable with and unapologetic about the model. And they're not hiding anything.
Ok, so their homepage design unintentionally omits that pertinent information. I’ve wasted a couple of hours installing a FOSS package for a personal project only to find out one of the most heavily presented features was a paid add-in. Even if it’s bad communication design add not intentional, it feels like a salesey bait-and-switch tactic in that situation, and they probably want to know that.
Why is pro pertinent info? You probably don't need it. It's just a set of plugins and tools anyone could write if they needed.
What is it that you think is the most heavily presented feature that is actually behind a paid addin? Because they're quite vocal about the fact that most people should not ever need the pro license... They actively dissuade people from buying it.
Which feature are you referring to?
not the OP, but a lot of the referenced functionality looks like I might use it. The problem is I'm not going to bother trying this and investing any effort with even the looming possibility I'll need to pay to keep going. I don't think too many people approach this space with a purchase evaluation mindset like say, "I'm going to test out this grid to see if we should buy it". In that case pay-for advanced functionality is part of the approach from the start.
Also, I can't see this approach working. Getting enterprise adoption of a front end framework is almost impossible outside of React, let alone paying for a niche one, and the "contact us" approach is a non-starter.
Fair enough! That's up to you
If the core of the framework fits what you need, you could write those additional plugins yourself, rather than relying on the official "pro" ones. My understanding so far is the plugin architecture is intentionally designed for this usecase, so you aren't beholden to the official maintainers to add/tweak features for your specific usecase.
This makes the investment in the tool a lot safer, because you can always swap out pieces that don't fit your usecase, rather than start from scratch with a new framework.
In an enterprise setting, I don't believe the cost alone will be the factor that drives the decision. It'd be weighing up the value of the framework (e.g., UI framework/programming language agnostic stack, simpler architectures, delivery speed, performance, cost of using the framework on users) against the license cost.
> Getting enterprise adoption of a front end framework is almost impossible outside of React, let alone paying for a niche one, and the "contact us" approach is a non-starter.
Two questions on this:
1. Why do you think it's impossible to get org buy-in? 2. Why do those same orgs pick frameworks like Next.js, whose full benefits can only be realized with sophisticated and paid infrastructure?
as i've said in many comments and the devs say ad-nauseum, there's very little need for anything in the Pro license. the fully open-source library is sufficient for almost all needs. And it is easily extendable with plugins if you want more functionality than it provides.
i went looking for pricing info and it's the last item in the last menu on the website... it's not exactly up front. i was looking for a "pricing" top-level menu item first, which is pretty standard nowadays.
As ive said in many other comments - YOU DO NOT NEED PRO. The devs are very adamant about this - even aggressively so. 99% of apps will work just fine with the free library. Pro is for some bells and whistles, or just to support people who have invested many thousands of hours into making a genuinely innovative framework, and given it away
OK, then this approach will needlessly discourage adoption AND consume way more resources than it brings in. Under this structure the team needs to deliver the highest level of quality to the smallest paying audience without community support. Further, enterprise is very hesitant to pay for this as a product but are way more receptive to paying for support. Everyone would be much better served without a tiered free/pay product and paid support options.
>> or just to support people who have invested many thousands of hours into making a genuinely innovative framework, and given it away
I've never seen a corporation do this even with projects that don't try and encourage like here.
If an enterprise won't want to pay for the product, what makes you think they're more likely pay for support?
If you're implying they'll only pay when they've seen the value of the product, then the non-pro part of the framework is incredibly feature-rich and can easily do that.
Yeah support model for a lit of projects like this doesn't work. Even companies like the one behind NATS struggle. It's almost contingent on you building a bad product that needs support.
This is irrelevant to my comment. You claimed they're not hiding pricing and I'm simply saying it was a little hard to find ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> exploring models
This model of using deception to hide costs isn't exactly "exploring". It's tried and tested.
you're stretching the definition of deception here my guy-what do you want them to do? plaster a big sign on the landing page stating that this framework ALSO contains pro features that you have to pay for?
> what do you want them to do?
> plaster a big sign on the landing page stating that this framework ALSO contains pro features that you have to pay for?
Yes.
I for one don't enjoy being on the receiving end of these marketing dark patterns and manipulation tactics.
I've commented above that this seems like a bad approach, but it sure feels like a lack of awareness vs. an intentional dark pattern. The internet makes it so easy to assume the worst but I think this is a case where we should start with the most charitable interpretation.
Dark pattern? Pro plugins are built in the same way as is accessible to any user. What's the real issue?
That you have to go looking, actively, to realise there is a paid option.
[flagged]
> what do you want them to do?
The common thing to do today is put a "pricing" menu item at the top right. That'd be fine.
> plaster a big sign
Yes!! That's table stakes. It's the bare minimum needed to not be considered malice.
Why? What is at stake?
Basic decency of being upfront about your business model, and in general being upfront and not being deceitful in life.
Anyways, constructively, they should add a usual pricing page with a nav for that at the top of the landing page.
It makes it clear that something is priced, right on the landing page.
In the pricing page the cards better make the costs super clear.
I'm confused. Datastar is a free open source framework that you can choose to use or not.
It's weird to call them out as indecent and deceitful for not actively marketing features that they really don't think you need. Even when you think you need it, they've actively encouraged people to analyze their problems to identify if it's a real need or a gap in hypermedia fundamentals knowledge.
Also, the top nav has a Pro page that has what you're looking for.
”Ready for liftoff?” should have a go-pro button. That’s all that is needed.
Why have a call-to-action to something they don't want you to do?
It's only there for Pro users and people who want to support the project [1] and not normal use.
[1] https://data-star.dev/essays/greedy_developer
I do think this is the most sustainable approach for monetizing open source projects, as long as the developer is fair about it. That is, truly make features that only large and/or enterprise users would have a use for, and only charge for those, instead of arbitrarily deciding to put core features of the software behind a paywall.
In the case of a web framework, that choice is a bit difficult. But if the software is fully functional for the large majority of users, then charging for niche features, or those that are actively discouraged, sounds like a fair approach to me.
I'm skeptical about this business model because it can become worse than proprietary software dependency over time. You get lured in by thinking it's open source and free, and might end up paying as much as the developer wants for essential features a few years later.
Like I said, it's crucial for the developer to be fair about it. Running a sustainable business built on open source is entrepreneurship on hard mode. Some companies do a better job at this than others, and, unfortunately, open source has been abused as a marketing strategy on many occasions.
No matter how you look at it, though, any business model that enables users to use open source software is a much better option for users than any proprietary software. There's no comparison. Given the choice, I'd much rather use OSS that is eventually rugpulled or enshittified than proprietary software, which carries those same risks, while also restricting my freedoms from the get-go, and having additional risks I might not be aware of at all (exploiting my data, security issues, etc.).
They're not even running a business on this - its literally registered as a 501c3 nonprofit. Its a labour of love that theyve shared with the world, and they actively tell people that the pro features are unnecessary for most projects. If you want those features or just want to support the project, the cost is quite fair, and just goes to things like traveling to do conference talks etc... They are not getting rich off of this.
Also, they intend for v1, which will be released soon-ish to be essentially the final version of Datastar. There wont be a need for much further development. So there's minimal risk of "rugpull" or even abandonment.
That's admirable. They just gained another sponsor. :)
I do think that they should be paid for this work, and be able to sustain themselves from it. So I wouldn't be against it being a business, or the project having a subscription model. The idea of open source being gratis, and products in general being "free", has done enough harm to the world.
100% so many projects have died because they didn't have a longterm plan to keep the lights on other than hoping for donations and or offering support that no one needed (the better the project the less likely you need support).
If they are charging for features, those features are a business, even if its a nonprofit business. There is also precedent for the IRS to consider it unrelated business income and to make them pay taxes on it, but that seems to be a huge grey area in US tax law.
LOL. What US tax law?
See for eaxmple the Mozilla IRS dispute as an example. Mozilla resolved this by putting their money making endeavors into a for profit org, which is in turn owned by the nonprofit, but the for profit org pays tax on their income. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/unrelated-business... See also
My point is that this administration isn’t really doing much enforcement.
Yeah it's a weird one people complain about open source projects having extra features you can pay for. But, then they also complain when you make open source GPL.
I'm sure it would be the same group complaining if it was GPL too.
Except the pro option is not "a few years later" it's available in pre-v1 and is a one-time lifetime purchase, not a subscription.
And the framework and docs are so small and simple, that you can read the entire site in an hour or two, in which time you would have noticed the pro features and pricing many times.
At the risk of repeating myself, I was talking in general terms about the business model and the uncertainty about the licensing it creates concerning possible future features.
I wasn't aware that they are a non-profit organization and agree that my remark doesn't necessarily apply to them since they're not a business. If the pro subscription helps them to maintain the open source project without making any profits, then that seems alright to me.
This is exactly what is done here. They're emphatic that most will/should never need the pro features.
Looking at https://data-star.dev/reference/datastar_pro#pro-features the features that stood out for me as things I would want to to use (and that don't feel particularly "pro" to me) are the animation features, data-replace-url, data-on-resize, data-scroll-into-view, the @clipboard() mechanism and, most importantly, the debugging tool.
My problem with this business model is that it has a chilling effect on open source contributions to the project, because it incentivizes the core maintainers to not accept community contributions that overlap with the paid features.
Datastar is currently in the Release Candidate phase of v1, which they seem to be certain will be the final form of Datastar. So, they're really not looking for "community contributions" to the core of datastar, other than for feedback to polish it off.
Moreover, ALL of the features are "plugins" - there's nothing stopping anyone from building and sharing their own. It is actually encouraged. In fact, in their next release they'll be releasing and documenting some sort of public API for plugins. Not sure exactly how it will differ from the current form though, since you can already make your own plugins.
They also intend to have some sort of free, open-source "marketplace" for community-built web components, based on their upcoming Rocket web component and Stellar css framework. You would just need to have the Datastar pro license to be able to use any of them.
I can see how this final part might be criticized, but it does seem quite fair to me. Sustainable open source is a big problem - in recent months ive had some important fully-open source dependencies disappear - even ones that were backed by well-funded companies. Moreover, Datastar is registered as a 501c3, and they really don't intend to "make money" from all of this. Its just to pay the bills, travel to conferences etc...
They're very reasonable people and open to all discussion in their discord. Im sure that whatever concerns you still have could be explained quickly if you went there.
In fact, i just posted there about this thread and how its overflowing with nonsensical complaints about how there's no link to or mention of Pro on the homepage - they said sure, we'll add a link.
Naming things really is hard. I can’t even with these names.
what's wrong with the names? they seem perfectly fine to me...
Also, btw, some of these - specifically data-replace-url - are strongly discouraged by the devs, to avoid footguns. I dont have experience with it, but people have spoken lots in their discord about how things like Hotwire Turbo are too magical and end up causing a lot of issues. Datastar strong recommends just using hypermedia as it was designed (HATEOAS https://htmx.org/essays/hateoas/) and doing full page reloads when you change a page. And for more ephemeral in-page changes, you can use the sse fragments morphing etc