Thread: "commercializing cubing"

--000325554c76890662047e1b2d73
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi all,

Here's a non-technical question I'd be curious for any and all to weigh in
on. I'm on the cusp of releasing another (beta) Rubik analogue program I've
worked on a bit over the past half year, and was planning to post it free
as I've done with other hobby projects. Then this blog
postshows
up in my reader today describing "the radical idea that you should
sell what you make." I'm curious what others think of this. Is it
unrealistic to expect people to pay, say $5, for a Rubik like program?
Would doing something like that injure the commercial-free spirit of
communities like this? Is the Rubik software market simply supersaturated
with freeware, such that it'd be hopeless to try to charge anything for yet
another Rubik program? (I tend to suspect the answer to the last is yes.)

These projects are an incredible amount of fun, but an equally incredible
amount of work. I happily pay for physical puzzles on a regular basis, but
have always downplayed the monetary value of the software versions. How
come? I don't think I've had any fundamental reversal in my plans or
anything, but the blog entry at least made me want to post this.

I'd love to hear your thoughts,

Roice

--000325554c76890662047e1b2d73
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Roice,

I'd love to hear other members opinions too but for my sake I think that
you deserve everything that you can get for your creative works. The
problem as you wonder is just how much you can hope for. People hate to
pay for software or other digital content but as you point out they'll
gladly pay for physical objects. I suppose there's some sort of animal
instinct here because intellectually it doesn't make sense. The article
you cite seems to want everybody to suddenly feel differently, and that
seems like a very silly thing to ask. Maybe we feel that when we pay for
something, it should cost the other person something too, otherwise it's
not fair. Whatever the reason, I doubt that you could make more than one
or two thousand dollars from a virtual twisty puzzle. Maybe you could
make more but I suspect that you'd have to put a lot more effort into
promoting it and protecting it, and that those efforts wouldn't be
nearly as fun as your day job. But what do I know? You can certainly
charge for it and then change your mind later if you like too. You might
also try finding the highest quality, most successful looking commercial
puzzle software and asking the creators how it's going for them. If it's
not working for the best of them then I'd be convinced that it's an
unlikely way to make money. Plus they might have other suggestions.
Maybe Meffert would be a good person to ask. Regardless, I certainly
won't hold it against you for trying.

-Melinda

Roice Nelson wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here's a non-technical question I'd be curious for any and all to
> weigh in on. I'm on the cusp of releasing another (beta) Rubik
> analogue program I've worked on a bit over the past half year, and was
> planning to post it free as I've done with other hobby projects. Then
> this blog post
>
> shows up in my reader today describing "the radical idea that you
> should sell what you make." I'm curious what others think of this.
> Is it unrealistic to expect people to pay, say $5, for a Rubik like
> program? Would doing something like that injure the commercial-free
> spirit of communities like this? Is the Rubik software market simply
> supersaturated with freeware, such that it'd be hopeless to try to
> charge anything for yet another Rubik program? (I tend to suspect the
> answer to the last is yes.)
>
> These projects are an incredible amount of fun, but an equally
> incredible amount of work. I happily pay for physical puzzles on a
> regular basis, but have always downplayed the monetary value of the
> software versions. How come? I don't think I've had any fundamental
> reversal in my plans or anything, but the blog entry at least made me
> want to post this.
>
> I'd love to hear your thoughts,
>
> Roice
>
>
>

I think it's a great idea. The 5D version everyone in this group uses (i.e=
., the one you made) is fantastic, and I have no qualms about a $5 donation=
to defray any expenses and to compensate you for your time.

All the best,

John


--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Roice Nelson wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>=20
> Here's a non-technical question I'd be curious for any and all to weigh i=
n
> on. I'm on the cusp of releasing another (beta) Rubik analogue program I=
've
> worked on a bit over the past half year, and was planning to post it free
> as I've done with other hobby projects. Then this blog
> post?utm_source=3Dfeedburner&utm_medium=3Dfeed&utm_campaign=3DFeed%253A+TheEnde=
avour+%2528The+Endeavour%2529>shows
> up in my reader today describing "the radical idea that you should
> sell what you make." I'm curious what others think of this. Is it
> unrealistic to expect people to pay, say $5, for a Rubik like program?
> Would doing something like that injure the commercial-free spirit of
> communities like this? Is the Rubik software market simply supersaturate=
d
> with freeware, such that it'd be hopeless to try to charge anything for y=
et
> another Rubik program? (I tend to suspect the answer to the last is yes.=
)
>=20
> These projects are an incredible amount of fun, but an equally incredible
> amount of work. I happily pay for physical puzzles on a regular basis, b=
ut
> have always downplayed the monetary value of the software versions. How
> come? I don't think I've had any fundamental reversal in my plans or
> anything, but the blog entry at least made me want to post this.
>=20
> I'd love to hear your thoughts,
>=20
> Roice
>
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=

=C2=A0



=20=20


=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20
Hi all,
=C2=A0
Here's a non-technical question I'd be curious for any and all to weigh in =
on.=C2=A0 I'm on the cusp of releasing another (beta) Rubik analogue progra=
m I've worked on a bit over the past half year, and was planning to post it=
free as=C2=A0I've done with other hobby projects.=C2=A0 Then this blog pos=
t shows up in my reader today describing "the radical idea that you should =
sell what you make."=C2=A0 I'm curious what others think of this.=C2=A0 Is =
it unrealistic to expect people to pay, say $5, for a Rubik like program?=
=C2=A0 Would doing something like that injure the commercial-free spirit of=
communities like this?=C2=A0 Is the Rubik software market=C2=A0simply supe=
rsaturated with freeware, such that=C2=A0it'd be hopeless to try to charge =
anything for yet another Rubik program?=C2=A0 (I tend to suspect the answer=
to the last is yes.)

=C2=A0
These projects are an incredible amount of fun, but an equally incredible a=
mount of work.=C2=A0 I happily pay for physical puzzles on a regular basis,=
but have always downplayed the monetary value of the software versions.=C2=
=A0 How come?=C2=A0 I don't think I've had any fundamental reversal in my p=
lans or anything, but the blog entry at least made me want to post this.

=C2=A0
I'd love to hear your thoughts,
=C2=A0
Roice


=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20

=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20


=20



=20=20






=20=20=20=20=20=20
--0-123129332-1264590311=:37542
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

top" style=3D"font: inherit;">Hi Roice, I think you should definitel= y receive compensation for all of your hard work!  Having seen your pr= ogram, I believe (or at least would hope) that people would gladly pay for = it considering how unique and enjoyable it is.  Paying five dollars fo= r the many hours of fun that I know your very original program will provide= seems like a bargain to me!  Hopefully, word about your program would= spread throughout the cubing forums.  If your program were just like = another Rubik's Cube program I don't think it would sell very well, despite= the amount of work and effort you would have put into it, simply because t= here are so many free versions available.  Your program, however, is v= ery unique and will appeal to puzzle fans and also those with a mathematica= l inclination.  If you choose to sell it, I know I will buy one! All the best, David --- On Tue, 1/26/10, Ro= ice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com> wrote: style=3D"border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; paddin= g-left: 5px;"> From: Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com> Subject: [= MC4D] commercializing cubing To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com Date: Tues= day, January 26, 2010, 8:18 PM   =20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20 Hi all,   Here's a non-technical question I'd be curious for any and all to weig= h in on.  I'm on the cusp of releasing another (beta) Rubik analogue p= rogram I've worked on a bit over the past half year, and was planning to po= st it free as I've done with other hobby projects.  Then =3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/= 01/22/make-something-and-sell-it/?utm_source=3Dfeedburner&utm_medium=3D= feed&utm_campaign=3DFeed%253A+TheEndeavour+%2528The+Endeavour%2529">thi= s blog post shows up in my reader today describing "the radical idea th= at you should sell what you make."  I'm curious what others think of t= his.  Is it unrealistic to expect people to pay, say $5, for a Rubik l= ike program?  Would doing something like that injure the commercial-fr= ee spirit of communities like this?  Is the Rubik software market = ;simply supersaturated with freeware, such that it'd be hopeless to tr= y to charge anything for yet another Rubik program?  (I tend to suspect th= e answer to the last is yes.)   These projects are an incredible amount of fun, but an equally incredi= ble amount of work.  I happily pay for physical puzzles on a regular b= asis, but have always downplayed the monetary value of the software version= s.  How come?  I don't think I've had any fundamental reversal in= my plans or anything, but the blog entry at least made me want to post thi= s.   I'd love to hear your thoughts,   Roice =20=20=20=20=20 =20

=20=20=20=20=20=20
--0-123129332-1264590311=:37542--

I think the prospects of making money from such software are very
limited. Part of the problem is that the number of potential
customers is so small. Furthermore, those potential customers
have plenty of free options for intellectually interesting
challenges on their computers. They can move on to something
else.

IMO, the most relevant response so far was the short one from
John, who wrote, "... I have no qualms about a $5 donation ... ".
The key here is "donation". This is the approach taken by many
sites that distribute good free software: "If you like my
programs, please feel free to make a donation." Such a site may
even offer a link to PayPal to facilitate making such a donation.
Here's a good example: http://noscript.net/ (See upper right
hand corner.) I think some folks who have made sufficiently good
free software contributions (and NoScript is certainly a good
example of that) are making out pretty well with the donations.
(But you have to have something with _very_ broad appeal.) The
donation approach may even be effective at getting compensation
from someone who would not have paid to download it. If they do
download it and find that they use it a lot, then they might feel
they can justify a donation. Even better than "try before you
buy".

All that said, I must admit that I recently paid money for a
Rubik's Cube simulator program. It was for my iPod Touch. It
cost a whopping $0.99. I must say that it was well worth it.
(It does up to order 6, and I did not even possess a
still-working order 4.) Here is a video review of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJokEe9YJp0 The touch screen
interface is very natural. (Many of the Java applets for the
puzzle on the Web use the same sort of dragging concept with the
mouse, but it is much more natural with a touch screen.) This is
probably a better illustration of the touch concept in this
regard than that rather clumsy "Touch Cube". (Roice had pointed
us to a video illustrating that one.) The solver that is built
into LCUBE is remarkably efficient, but it fails to correctly
orient face-center cubies when in a mode in which the orientation
of those cubies is apparent. (Regarding the feature about which
the reviewer admitted failed comprehension: The feature is
something I had not seen before. When the cubie size is small
(so you can see between them), you can enable stickers on ALL
facelets of the cubies. In such case, all 26 visible cubies are
'decorated' in precisely the same manner. This gives you another
way to tell which sticker is on a facelet that is facing away
from you. The "small cubies" option strikes me as useless
without also enabling this option. However, it presents more
than you really want to see. IMO, it is not as effective as
making the cubies transparent; and I have no idea why the Cool
Moon folks failed to offer that option.)

Regards,
David V.


----- Original Message -----
From: Roice Nelson
To: 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 7:18 PM
Subject: [MC4D] commercializing cubing

Hi all,

Here's a non-technical question I'd be curious for any and all to
weigh in on. I'm on the cusp of releasing another (beta) Rubik
analogue program I've worked on a bit over the past half year,
and was planning to post it free as I've done with other hobby
projects. Then this blog post shows up in my reader today
describing "the radical idea that you should sell what you make."
I'm curious what others think of this. Is it unrealistic to
expect people to pay, say $5, for a Rubik like program? Would
doing something like that injure the commercial-free spirit of
communities like this? Is the Rubik software market simply
supersaturated with freeware, such that it'd be hopeless to try
to charge anything for yet another Rubik program? (I tend to
suspect the answer to the last is yes.)

These projects are an incredible amount of fun, but an equally
incredible amount of work. I happily pay for physical puzzles on
a regular basis, but have always downplayed the monetary value of
the software versions. How come? I don't think I've had any
fundamental reversal in my plans or anything, but the blog entry
at least made me want to post this.

I'd love to hear your thoughts,

Roice