Just thought I'd share a thought I had about Vuo's development model and how it might effect its users. Totally just wanting to start a discussion rather than prove a point. Vuo's development was always highly anticipated to the point of being expected before it even existed. I think this was fed in part by QC's rumoured abandonment, in part by the transparency of the developer's processes from the start and by the fact that the beta required/s payment from the very start. Rather than risking their development costs it was crowdfunded to a degree, and rather than getting it to a usable level upon release it was a paid, barely functional environment IMO. This isn't to say that this is the wrong way to go about things. There is obvious advantages to both the user and developers to employing this level of transparency in their development process. The paid beta I guess would attract the more professional or heavy user end of the market for support and suggestions, which I suppose would be a good thing. This is really a discussion about the development-to-release continuum methodology used by Kosada and where we see its benefits or pitfalls.

Now, I'm not against crowdfunding things by any means, but Vuo's early subscription structure has got me thinking.

When Vuo is a year old, free subscribers will get the initial beta that the paid users got at the start. If they choose to pay they will be on par with the original supporters. This would be more comfortable for me if there was enough functionality in the first year of Vuo to really be able to use it. It really boils it down to just a build-viewable funding campaign. But of course that is ok because we can all see the development timeline. But, is it? I can't tell you how many times I've had to look at that timeline..that timeline causes more problems than it solves in my opinion because it's so broad and incomplete. There is an assumed level of functionality AROUND the features listed in that timeline that it makes it a nebulous and in some ways pointless thing to have. For example feature requests of mine and others have been met with "that's scheduled for.." that aren't in the timeline and are, for lack of a better term, basic things rather than "features". Then add to this the fact that Credits are essentially a way of saying "pay me $70 per hour to make this yearly paid app more usable". I don't know how I feel about that.

Kosada have employed a transparent business model with certain vague dot-points without showing us the full roadmap of basic or bones features. When I look at the feature request form i honestly don't know where to start, not only because there are lots of things yet to be done but because I don't know which ones are already planned, in-between the features Kosada has deemed notable enough to have on the roadmap.

Getting back to the subscriptions, I wonder what will happen with the new user numbers after a year. These will, by nature, be the people that weren't excited by or interested in supporting the app and want to wander into something new and they will be disappointed, even if it is free. I wonder what interest they will have in seeing essentially just a progress archive of an app?

In short, I think this drip-fed release system runs the risk of people getting sick of checking in on updates, losing interest and then needing features/possibilities blatantly demonstrated for them in videos etc forever as they become available. It's easy to give up on something that you have to keep discovering isn't there yet. I really want this to work! What are your thoughts?

Comments

Hey bLackburst,

tmoles's picture
Submitted by

Hey bLackburst,

Just want to offer a couple points for reference.

1) When the open source version is released, it will not include the Vuo Editor (http://vuo.org/free-capabilities).

2) We haven't posted it elsewhere yet, but it might be helpful to start here — we're planning to release a free trial version around 1.0 so people can try out Vuo before purchasing.

Thank you for initiating such a discussion.