Would you buy "Netflix Pro" for SageTV Media Center, HD100/HD200 for $29.95?

[mkanet]

Now that I got your attention:

We have been very fortunate to have talented developers contribute free addons to the SageTV for years. We love it, we're excited to see new free addons and new features for these addons; and, of course, we expect a reasonable level of support for them. And, I'm sure we will hopefully continue to enjoy this privilege for years to come.

Unfortunately, its just not realistic for us to expect the same software quality, features, updates, and support we would expect from commercial products due to sageTV developers' limited free time. I dont think we've even seen close the the full potential what some of these developers can produce given enough time and the right compensation.

I am curious.. would you pay for a fully featured commercial quality product for SageTV; which includes support and upgrades for let's say... a year? For example, Netflix Pro for $29.95, iMovies for $29.95, Slimplayer 3.0 for $29.95, FanArt Plus! for $29.95 (you get the idea).

If there's enough people seriously interested in this idea.. anything is possible (with the blessing of the company, SageTV, of course).

Developers.. you do the math:

Let’s say almost everyone who bought sageTV Media Server, a HD-100/HD-200 extender, Hauppauge TV capture card, also buys a licensed copy of Netflix or iMovies for SageTV. Would this generate enough sales to eventually equal the amount of hours you would need to spend for research, development, and provide tech support for a product?

I'm definitely not suggesting to replace all free addons with commercial products; ...just a few large addons that require much more work than the typical addon. Just imagine a few large, "must-have" addons/upgrades for sageTV; plus, rest of the free plugins/addons/themes actively developed like before.

It seems like a win-win scenario. I'm guessing people will have different opinions about this; which is all welcome. It would be good to talk about this and see where it goes from here. Maybe it might make it easier for a developer to step forward with the intent of producing a commercial product without feeling like he's betraying the free-software community.



-MKANET

[PLUCKYHD]

Speaking from a developer could I do more yes you could always do more, but if you start getting paid then it becomes a must and a job and to me I would lose incetitive to do it and fill obligated.

In some ways free is good as I can put something out there to test if it doesn't work I learned if it were a pay situation I would have allot of pissed people.

[Kryspy]

Hi,

I purchased the myTV application for Windows MCE and it is an abysmal piece of garbage. Enough said?

I will never buy another add-on again unless it is integrated into the final product.

Kryspy

[GKusnick]

There was a thread about donations for plugins some months back; many of those responses will be relevant here.

For myself, I consider this a hobby. I'm not at all interested in making a business of it, with all the time commitment and support obligations that entails. And the money I could make from that is small potatoes compared to a real job in the software industry.

There's also the issue that as soon as you starting charging money, you run afoul of the no-commercial-use forum rules and are barred from announcing or supporting your products here. Users would have to go elsewhere to download and get support for those pay-to-play add-ons.

[mkanet]

Hey guys, thanks for chiming in. Thanks for the candid and honest responses. I sure as heck dont know how a sageTV hobbiest developer thinks; and, wouldnt presume they all think the same way.. which is why I brought it up. I'm all for free development community and everyone helping each other out anyway they can.

Yes, producing a commercial product for sageTV isn't probably a fun ride in the park; and, the developer would probably feel more of a responsibility for providing a quality, fully-working product with good support; which might be why this idea doesnt sound too appealing to some (maybe all) sageTV developers. What didnt occur to me is this type of a product could be considered, "small potatoes". I actually thought it might be good money compared to the time spent. I have no idea how much money it would be if, let's say, almost everyone that owns an extender; also, buys a licensed copy of Netflix for sageTV. Maybe, it wouldnt be small potatos to shareware developers not in United States; who could use the money; and have fun developing something that they could use too...

[rlrl]

a plugin for 40-50% of the price of sagetv seems steep to me. in any case, keep this article in mind if you do decide to sell plugins.

http://bit.ly/Dsv2a

[Brent]

I would pay for a plugin I felt was worth it to me. And I'd be for having some of the for-pay, but the general consensus was no last time this was discussed.

Seems like you could still make it work though. Something like the way the Apple app store works where there are bunches of free plugins and then some premium ones where the price was 1.99 to 5.99. I think that would work here. But I totally understand the user-developers who would prefer not to go the paid route.

I say why not have most free, but some paid if the dev wants to. Just seems like a good idea to have it as an option - to me at least. But I think the price would need to be closer to micropayments to get enough users though.

[bastafidli]

I would pay for it, if it is easy to install and supported. I am very technically knowledgable, but these days I dont have the time anymore to tinker. I just want things to work.

[Fuzzy]

Having viewed the Netflix content before, I don't think i'd ever pay anything over my normal Netflix sub for it. Very rarely did I ever see anything I wanted to watch available to stream.

[wado1971]

Mainlobby has a pay-for-plugin structure which I find a huge turnoff.
I'd personally never pay for a SageTV plugin - yet I have no problem donating (ie-comskip) if the product fills a gap which SageTV will not or cannot develop themselves.
My interest for SageTV is more heavily weighed due to the user community environment than it is for the product itself & if plugins took on an entrepreneur aspect I would probably drop the product.
I'm also of the opinion that SageTV would not promote such a structure. Remember that when using studio to develop a plugin all work produced is actually owned by SageTV. Any outside development like comskip,BMT,etc kind of falls into a different category & like I said previously I would consider donations & possible purchase (but only at ~ 10% of product cost).

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by wado1971

Mainlobby has a pay-for-plugin structure which I find a huge turnoff.
I'd personally never pay for a SageTV plugin - yet I have no problem donating (ie-comskip) if the product fills a gap which SageTV will not or cannot develop themselves.
My interest for SageTV is more heavily weighed due to the user community environment than it is for the product itself & if plugins took on an entrepreneur aspect I would probably drop the product.
I'm also of the opinion that SageTV would not promote such a structure. Remember that when using studio to develop a plugin all work produced is actually owned by SageTV. Any outside development like comskip,BMT,etc kind of falls into a different category & like I said previously I would consider donations & possible purchase (but only at ~ 10% of product cost).

Correct studio work is the rights of SageTV and anyone can copy it but not the java coding say made in eclipse and such are not and are not exposed in studio. So someone could do pretty much all of their coding hidden and just expose the necessary UI components in studio, but still I think this is a bad idead and agree it would be small patatoes and probably just make most mad they don't/didn't make the money they thought they would.

I know i stated above but I love the free aspect but more importantly as a developer I love the sharing aspect among developers in Sagetv. When I first started everyone was willing to help and answer any question I had no matter how stupid even point me to the code in their stvi or such to help me understand. Not to mention the ones that let me copy code from their stvi to save me from having to redo and I in turn have allowed the same. I would never be where I am with my addins without the open sharing and support in studio forums.

My 2cents again

[lpitman]

I agree with PluckyHD, I use to be a developer for MainLobby plug-ins, and I had more fun and less headaces when it was a hobbiest type of environment. After everyone went commerical, I hated it, for one thing the support was not as good and the hobby became very expensive, especially when you feel like you are paying someone for fixing problematic software...myself included.

Even as a developer, I felt less pressure and enjoyed fixing and adding features when I didn't have too. People tend to treat you very rude when they pay for a plug-in and want a specific feature added or it is incompatible with some other thing.

The reason I am here using SageTV is because I felt that MainLobby was to expensive and required to much maintenance that I was paying for.

If things around here were to go the way of MainLobby then I am sure many would go to other solutions such as XBMC or some other type of open source or hobby MC.

Just my 2-Cents..

[mkanet]

Yes, Brent that's my opinion as well. I figure, if paid options can enhance a user's experience; and the user has the money to pay for it... why not?

However, as we can see... not everyone thinks the same way. Some can only comprehend all commercial or all free. Some people will pay top dollar to have the best experience for their Media Center. Some people refuse to pay for anything. And.. that's what makes this community so diverse and interesting I certainly cant judge people... just observe and see what most people would be happy/happier with.

Personally, I would want a plugin to be well supported and full of features; whether free or not. I just figured a developer who is developing/supporting a paid product would feel more responsibility to provide feature enhancements, bug-fixes, and support as opposed to having the freedom of having the attitude.. "tough luck, it works for me just fine. I dont get paid for this. Why dont you go learn studio and java yourself if you want it working for you; or, just stop using it. I'm not saying that all developers here have this problem; but, I'm sure the thought has crossed their minds more than once (or something very similar). It does make sense to me that a developer doesnt want to lose this kind of freedom; even if they wouldnt want to word it that way; especially if they think the sales it generates are "small potatoes".

Originally Posted by Brent

I would pay for a plugin I felt was worth it to me. And I'd be for having some of the for-pay, but the general consensus was no last time this was discussed.

Seems like you could still make it work though. Something like the way the Apple app store works where there are bunches of free plugins and then some premium ones where the price was 1.99 to 5.99. I think that would work here. But I totally understand the user-developers who would prefer not to go the paid route.

I say why not have most free, but some paid if the dev wants to. Just seems like a good idea to have it as an option - to me at least. But I think the price would need to be closer to micropayments to get enough users though.

[PLUCKYHD]

I think you are forgetting/not realizing that most STVI's are created in studio and are the property of SageTV and if someone starts charging for one it is easy to just rip it off. (not including java calls)

[MitchSchaft]

Stop trying to ruin our community, mkanet .

[mkanet]

Thanks guys.. keep them coming...

[rlrl]

just host your plugin somewhere and put google adsense ads on the download page. and make it known that downloaders should click on those ads to show their appreciation by having google pay the developer of course, you can't solicit clicks - that's against adsense rules

[stanger89]

FWIW, I agree with most of the posts above as well. Having done some STV development in the past I completely sympathize. I think many, probably most of the add on devs here are doing their deveolpment for selfish reasons. They want their creations for themselves, but they figure they might as well let the community enjoy it as well. I know that was my thoughts with the DVD Pro2Sage work. I didn't do it for any reason but to be able to import metadata myself.

I frankly don't think Sage is big enough to support a "for profit" plugin ecosystem. WMC, yes, Xbox 360 community games yes, but SageTV no. There just aren't enough users.

That said, I took a sligtly different interpretation of your original question, my thought was would I pay that to SageTV for an official addon.

Netflix? Maybe, if it's not a capture card hack but real support it could be nice. But it would have to work better than my Xbox 360's Netflix player.

Squeezebox? Nope. I'd rather have an actual squeezebox. The one exception might be if it worked with the Duet remote.

Fanart? Maybe, but probably not. I know I'm against common thoughts, but I'm not a fan of that sort of "bling" in my UI. Simple metadata and cover image is all I care about. Better searching/filtering are more important than fanart IMO.

[pedz25]

I wouldn't say that I am completely opposed to purchasing plugins, but I am more inclined to donate for a plugin that I like. I'd rather show my appreciation for someone's hard work rather than paying for the privilege to use it.
I haven't developed any plugins yet, but I've been tossing around a few ideas. I like the idea of keeping Sage a hobby like others have mentioned, paying for and getting payed for plugins would kind of ruin that for me.

[teesee150]

I would have no problem donating to the developers. I would gladly donate to Comskip or Sage Movie Wall. Both are excellent plugins.