Despite Google's intentions for its default image viewing and editing app for Android, the Photos app has, over the years, become one of the most popular
Thank you. Any reason why they wouldn’t make it more apparent from their homepage? I’m always interested in self-hosted solutions, and even I ducked out of there after seeing only subscription plans being offered.
A software’s website and docs are very telling, aren’t they? It’s like a cultural thing from the creators, some open source software will always be more business oriented, others are more helpful towards homelab /self-hosting users.
Has that killed Bitwarden yet? There are many self-hosted projects that also have paid options.
I’d be happy with a paid (one-time fee) license for a self-hosted option with any software. Subscriptions should only be paying for data/storage, and if that’s offloaded to the customer’s local hardware, there’s no need to keep them on a subscription.
Especially for a product that’s privacy-first, that really should include a self-hosted option (paid or otherwise).
You implied that it would hurt business, and that really doesn’t seem to be the case for other projects using a self-hosted/subscription business model.
If you meant something else, then I guess I misunderstood. No harm, no foul.
Is it?? They don’t make that evident anywhere on their website. All I see is a pricing page with no hint that it can be self-hosted.
See their github for self-hosting.
https://help.ente.io/self-hosting/
Thank you. Any reason why they wouldn’t make it more apparent from their homepage? I’m always interested in self-hosted solutions, and even I ducked out of there after seeing only subscription plans being offered.
A software’s website and docs are very telling, aren’t they? It’s like a cultural thing from the creators, some open source software will always be more business oriented, others are more helpful towards homelab /self-hosting users.
…why would they? Self-hosting loses them business.
Has that killed Bitwarden yet? There are many self-hosted projects that also have paid options.
I’d be happy with a paid (one-time fee) license for a self-hosted option with any software. Subscriptions should only be paying for data/storage, and if that’s offloaded to the customer’s local hardware, there’s no need to keep them on a subscription.
Especially for a product that’s privacy-first, that really should include a self-hosted option (paid or otherwise).
I didn’t say anything about “killing”.
You implied that it would hurt business, and that really doesn’t seem to be the case for other projects using a self-hosted/subscription business model.
If you meant something else, then I guess I misunderstood. No harm, no foul.
Hurting /= killing
Fair enough. I still don’t think that being open about their self-hosted option would hurt them.