I’m very grateful, that Cryptomator is around. I appreciate, that I don’t have to pay every month. So for me the new update and the possibility of a “donation key” was a welcome reminder, that I can’t expect further development of this great software without “donating” every once in a while - whatever you want to call that.
5 Likes
I think one cannot say “no development”. Maybe it will be slower, but since Cryptomator is open source there is always the possiblilty that other people can fork the project to push the development again.
There is the well-known proverb “Money makes the world go round”. In the context of open source this is not entirely true, it should be worded “Money makes the world go round faster.” 
1 Like
here are my 5 cents…
Beside of definitions of “open source” etc.
What really counts for me is the value of the product and the possibility to use it on multiple platforms. I am a long time user and and I dont remember how much I paid some years ago. But I am sure it was a small amount in relation to the value it has for me especially for the long using.
Now this feature is a reminder to honor the team and the product. Therefore I was happy to donate and show my gratitude.
The “open source” thing in my oppinion is not about the 0 dollar payment but to show there are not any hidden secrets and in my eyes this is an additional value which should certainly not reduce the payment.
Best regards, Thomas
2 Likes
I was happy to pay a small contribution for the dark mode even though I don’t even use it. It reminded me that I had never donated to you for your excellent product, as far as I can remember. I try to support open source software with the walk, not just the talk.
I recently started using cyberduck/mountainduck which has cryptomator built-in which make the tool even more useful to me since I can create vaults in the cloud that don’t even take space on my hard disk. Thanks and keep up the good work!
4 Likes
Slightly dated conversation but still relevant now the Android version has been open-sourced.
Will the Google Play version become free, with an optional donation license? Or will it be only free if you build it yourself from source (github)?
See my post in this topic:
3 Likes
This makes sense. Make it paid so that it helps develop the app.
3 Likes
First off I’ll say I am someone interested in dark mode and do desire it. I am light sensitive, so I always go for dark modes. So with that bias in mind, I’ll look at your use of terminology here.
Dark mode on desktop requires a donation to get a license key. But when ever someone does this to get a “donation” key, it is no longer classified as a donation. Looking at wikipedia:
Donations are given without return consideration. This lack of return consideration means that, in common law, an agreement to make a donation is an “imperfect contract void for want of consideration.”[5] Only when the donation is actually made does it acquire legal status as a transfer or property.[6]
What you are actually doing is selling a license. And at no small price either, and each platform has it’s own sperate license you need to purchase. The “Donation” License you sell for desktop is the worst of them all. Were I am, to purchase the android version is $15 after currency conversion, to get the desktop one will cost me approximately $25, almost double the android one for just the dark mode.
Even on your own site you sell the android license for $9.99€, $5€ less than your minimum required donation.
My recommendation is to start with at least calling it what it is. And that’s not a donation. You are selling a license for the desktop version by the legal definitions.
I do understand that you need financial income, but the choice of wording has made me very uncomfortable. I haven’t purchased the android version. I have downloaded the desktop program. And with the interface being bright I instantly looked for a dark mode and found out about the licensing stuff. The end result is I just closed it and haven’t tried it out, I don’t feel comfortable with it.
1 Like
This is not true. Once you have a donation key, you can use it for all your Desktop platforms. There are no restrictions to the used platform or the number of usages.
By platform I was referring to operating systems. Though by your wording I’d guess you are using the same “donation” license to activate the macOS and Linux desktop clients. But that in itself is still a restriction, the license is for the desktop versions. I was hoping that it would be usable for all clients, but that didn’t seem to be the case from what I could see.
This still leaves three separate Licenses. Desktop, Android and IOS. The Desktop license covering three OS’s might be a point for it costing more, though I’d counterpoint that a major portion of your userbase might prefer a cheaper option to have it just for their platform. Given the targeted audience I could still see a few using two different OS’s, fewer still three.
Something that would get some attention from me at least would be a license that covers all clients. That would be nice, and people could get that and know they are set no matter what.
In any case though I think the donation terminology does need to be looked at. I know I am only one data point in the grand scheme of things, but I think it would be extremely beneficial.
1 Like
This is correct. And even reflected in the choice you have to make on our website: Either buy a key or donate without retrieving a key.
While the process does make this distinction, you are right that the name of the key doesn’t reflect this. Thank you for your feedback, we will discuss our options here.
Your individual situation regarding light sensitivity is yet another point we should consider.
I can’t really follow your point here. How does currency conversion increase the price? We even lose revenue, if people pay 15 USD instead of 15 EUR due to the weaker currency.
That is technically impossible, unless we force you to create an account you need to log into. Without accounts, the App Store and Play Store are unaware of the fact that you already purchased a license elsewhere.
1 Like
First off I’d just like to say thank you for the response. You’ve touched on every point I was discussing.
Might I suggest calling it a “Supporter Key”? It’s a word that seems like it could fit much better.
I will admit it’s mild at least, but it does cause some discomfort. It’d take some work, but maybe you could add custom theming? That way the light and dark modes can be available to all, and then those with a key can choose custom colors for the app.
Sorry, bringing up the currency conversion distracted away from the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say was that the minimum price being asked for to get dark mode on the desktop is more than that cost of buying the mobile version, which gets you the entire app. The balance of cost vs features seems out.
Actually it is technically possible, you guys already have a option for android to enter a license key here. But there is an issue from the store side when it comes to them wanting their cut. Android is easy with the fact you could offer to license version on F-Droid. IOS though has no option though… The stores might overlook it if used to unlock more than just the client they are "hosting.
I don’t think having accounts would be bad either if you offer it as an option, not a requirement. That’d could leave a user with three options. Store purchase, key, or account.
Yes, interestingly that idea came up internally as well. Also very much in line with what people know from crowdfunding platforms or similar “perks for support” models.
Sorry to hear that your subjective benefit from the desktop app is disproportionately low compared to the mobile app. But please understand that this is merely one opinion and not the baseline for pricing decisions.
Right now, I don’t see a feasible “one license for all platforms” option. Despite what you think what’s possible, I can assure that Google and Apple don’t offer any way to inject third party licenses. And there are plenty examples of apps that got kicked out of the stores by implementing workarounds. The only option would be account-based. We don’t want that. That’s a vendor lock-in and not our understanding of free software. Furthermore we’d be obliged to allow such transactions via in-app purchase, increasing the gross price even further due to additional fees.
Long story short: I agree in some points and we will see how to improve the situation, but we won’t make pricing a community decision as long as we need to cross-subsidize the consumer applications.
2 Likes
All good. I do like the idea you guys have with this program, and I wish you good luck!
We have now added this new form where you can explain, why you would like to receive a free supporter certificate. While it took us some time, I hope this shows that we value your feedback.
Even simpler, for anyone else interested in a non-monetary way to retrieve a supporter certificate: Spreading the word helps us, as well:
1 Like
Android has Webdav support. OSX doesn’t…
Very emotional discussion for nothing. If you don’t want to pay – stay away. Because it means you don’t have an appreciation for the product.
If you paid already and have a problem with the product, ask about. If you paid already and have a problem with the price or payment policy afterwards – your research before was simply poor.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s cheap and the product is good.
I can’t believe people arguing over 20 bucks or something when it comes to software.
1 Like
I just had to create an account for this post just to respond to this nonsense. You indicate that you do not get dark mode on desktop while you have paid for the mobile version. Read that sentence again. Imagine that. My laces or sole of my shoes are worn out and I’m demanding new ones from Nike, doesn’t that sound a bit crazy? These people make a free functioning application available on all platforms to protect your fundamental rights. The functionality is not taken away at all and with real blockages as some annoying developers do. You pretend to have this application in the foreground all the time. It is a cosmetic function and it is more of a gesture and it seems reasonable to me. The only opinion I have on this is that $15 dollars is too expensive if you have already made your contribution by buying the mobile app, in my opinion $5-7.50 would be more reasonable and for new users the $15, but your way of talking, while these people are doing really good things at their core (while such companies hardly exist anymore), you really have to adapt. Find out what capitalism is.
1 Like
Your analogy is wrong. It’s more like you’re buying a pair of shoes from Nike and demanding a free pair of gloves from them as well. Edit: More precisely, you’re getting a white pair of shoes from Nike for free and you pay for changing them to black. And then demanding that you get a free pair of gloves from them as well. Read that sentence again.
We don’t want to add extra functionality for licensing nonsense. Your suggestion would require some kind of tracking of licenses using accounts. Offering a license for all platforms is impossible without user accounts. Just take iOS as an example (and partly Android when using Google Play), you probably have followed the news. You can’t buy an iOS app in the App Store and use the same license for an Android app on Google Play. Except you’re tracking this license via your own server with user accounts. We absolutely do not want that, Cryptomator is not a SaaS, it’s a client-side application.
We’re sticking to our principles and don’t want to collect any unnecessary user data so that Cryptomator stays free from account registration. That’s the problem when you have to consider all platforms and their strict rules.
If you think that the price is too high, then it’s too high for you. That’s totally fine. To be honest, if we could offer a bundle for all platforms, we would do that. But as I’ve mentioned, that’s technically impossible right now without breaking any principles.