I’ll try to not be dismissive of the labour, though it’s kind of funny (or actually natural) that the heavy lifting libraries that only a few can actually write are open and free, while the shallow wrappers that everyone can write are paid and closed.
Decades ago we were calling out these software and now it’s the norm.
Another example along the line: I wanted to extract a frame from a video on iOS, it’s impossible with the built-in tools (screenshot aside) and found that someone built a paid app only for that.
While i'm with you in principle, over the years i've learned that we should not talk down good UI/UX, if that's what the wrapper adds. It's a crucial component to the value of a piece of software for the end user.
He actually himself writes that he doesn't want to spend too much time on his apps:
> now i have lession that i shouldnt build apps that consumes so much time.
Sounds like somebody really devoted to the perfect UI experience.
Look, I don't want to talk down this kid. Everybody starts somewhere and I like the enthusiasm. But him expecting to make $30 off everybody for plumbing together a bunch of FOSS libs is rubbing me the wrong way.
Yes just like instead of Dropbox for a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
I don't check the project deeply yet so I don't comment about it.
That's not true Dropbox was in the technical edge when it came, and old time ago, was barely possible, and the recurrent cost of the severs and operation cost is clearly not the same.
And pay Foss GUIs are sad state of reality
Distribution, marketing and running it is the hard part, not building software. I consider libraries to be like roads, it's a communal good if you will. Feel free to build and run these apps yourself in the open instead of complaining. You will see how time consuming that is.
Building a road is usually very similar to building another road.
Building ffmpeg is very different from an SSL lib. They need different tradeoffs, design strategies, domain knowledge, etc. And doing them properly is really really hard. A lot of software out there sucks, in part because there is more focus on marketing than on correctness and reliability.
If roads had the same quality as software then traffic deaths would be an order of magnitude higher.
Try working on a library used in tech that your life depends on and you might re-consider your road metaphor.
I've been a core maintainer of several (machine learning) libraries. It's a communal effort of people who care enough about these things. They come together because they need it, it's basic infrastructure so to speak.
> Building a road is usually very similar to building another road.
It's a similar process, but so is building software. That's entirely besides my point though, which you seem to have missed entirely.
Case in point: I regularly use a free iOS app that is clearly the result of someone's deep passion in taking what could have been a simple wrapper and turning it into an incredibly simple but powerful interface to complete a useful task efficiently and at any scale... and that task is exactly what OP was trying to do...
But as someone who's somewhat familiar with app store optimization, I guarantee the creator did none of that that.
Their app name would need to be something obnoxious like "Frame Grabber Extractor: Pic from Video" to capture all the different searches people do for this task.
And the people focused on distribution are even paying for ads with the money they make their IAP infested "1 week trial; $4 a week" alternatives make.
What you mention is the hard part is only because the foundational blocks are free and open source (in this example). Not that marketing would become easy, it's still difficult, but not write-ffmpeg-from-scratch difficult.
What is more, many people expect that software that they are trying will be open source and free. It makes really hard to create a new desktop app that is paid as a solo founder. Congratulations!
its not just shallow wrapper, as a creator of other shallow wrapper(online and free btw) if you want to crop a video how do you plan to do it with ffmpeg cli? it would be really tedious to do so. You can easily do it visually with this wrapper and other such wrappers so its not like they are not providing value.
Another example is do you remember ffmpeg command syntax? i don't! here he is taking care of generating it for you so you don't waste time asking llm or searching for google and iterating on it if it doesn't works.
There's nearly 2 million lines of code in the FFMPEG codebase: unless you're building the next Adobe Premiere, no matter how much value you provide, you are building an extremely shallow wrapper around FFMPEG when you build an interface to crop videos.
No one is saying a shallow wrapper can't provide value, but most of the value for the end user is derived from FFMPEG, not the layer you added to it.
If we took FFMPEG and your wrapper and separated them, FFMPEG could still do the one task that your users need: it would be harder, and it would be less convenient, but it can still crop videos. Your tool would no longer do anything but draw rectangles where we'd like a crop to appear. It'd meet no user needs at all.
-
Also to clarify my stance, there's nothing wrong with shallow wrappers, and I've made shallow wrappers: I know finding the user need, and thinking of the right UX and figuring out distribution is all a lot of real legwork.
But I also find it's important to realize when most of the value you're providing is enabled by something you built on. There shouldn't be shame in admitting that you wrapped something that was powerful and potentially unwieldy for your segment of users and made it useful.
Of course they provide value! They car dealer selling you that new Toyota also provides value. Without him you couldn't buy that car, certainly not so easily.
Doesn't mean he manufactured it, or invented it, or conceived of the very idea of an automobile with an ICE (or EV). It's all a big collaborative effort, and imagining that all of the $40k for that car go straight into the dealer's pocket would be absurd. Legally absurd, and ethically absurd as well.
Similar with a piece of software that builds on other work. Of course it provides value (hopefully). But on the whole, the extra value added is not the majority of the whole package.
That's not what I'm thinking. Where exactly should those $25 go? If there is such an easy place, fine, go ahead. I personally don't see one, since there are many giants on whose shoulders he is standing on.
There are other options, many of them have been mentioned in this discussion.
I suppose my main point is that the apparently new quite inexperienced guy, as appreciated as his enthusiasm is, should at some point understand that all the tech he uses for free didn't fall from the sky and just whipping the cream that floats on top for personal profit is not a sustainable model. Even though that seems to be the trend these days.
The fact of the matter is that there are many motivations for creating software. If someone profits off of my work, that I released into the world with licensing terms that allows them to do so, there’s no obligation that I be paid for it. I could have, myself, recognized the potential and done the work to make a marketable tool, but my motivation was different.
You can fault the FOSS community for promoting default libre licensing that created the “exploitable” nature of this, but the fact of the matter is that people creating software are able to make a choice. They can make a different choice if they wish.
You a seem to be misunderstanding if not misrepresenting my point. I applaud the FOSS community for these licenses. I use them myself. And I don't expect any payment. And it's fine that if anybody invests a lot of expertise and time to build a complicated product to commercialize it. Even better if they contribute back in one way or another.
This is about a green kid coming along and quickly churning out lots of half-baked solutions, asking for frankly quite a lot of money for those, apparently without acknowledging the giants on whose shoulder they are standing. Legally they have the right to do so, sure. But we as a community can give push back in that that's not how things will work in the long run. I encourage you to check out his personal home page, you'll see what I mean. (And again, I generally applaud the enthusiasm. But those things would better be suited as portfolio-building personal OSS projects on github rather than trying to squeeze the dollars.)
There is a difference between legitimate business interests after large investments, and freeloaders.
> But we as a community can give push back in that that's not how things will work in the long run. I encourage you to check out his personal home page, you'll see what I mean.
> (And again, I generally applaud the enthusiasm. But those things would better be suited as portfolio-building personal OSS projects on github rather than trying to squeeze the dollars.)
Why? They are under no obligation to do so, and then they are working for free. (A common trope related to FOSS, often argued on this very website)
> There is a difference between legitimate business interests after large investments, and freeloaders.
What large investment are you talking about? The thousands of hours of free labor that went ffmpeg? Yeah. See also all of the open source software that went into the operating system and utilities they built everything on. That doesn’t stop people from selling proprietary software, so why is this any different?
This is free market capitalism. If they can find people to pay $29 for a copy of this wrapper, more power to them. That also happens to be a much more powerful resume bullet point.
And you might be underestimating the work that went into those libraries.
We are talking decades of work, dealing with platform issues, performance, loads of security considerations and then there is the whole licensing+patent topic.
Sure UI work is hard, but of the whole package, it's only the visible part of the iceberg and now I'm expected to give $30 to the person who only contributed that last piece? Of course it's work too but if not at least half that money is being donated to the underlying FOSS projects then I'm out.
Another suggestion: open source your app. Those who don't know how to compile/build it, or are too lazy, which will be most, they can pay for the convenience, and you'll have the income you expect, but at least you are giving back to the community on whose work you are basing yours.
> self-taught full-stack developer who wrote the first line of code in the 2020 Corona lockdown.
You my friend are standing on the shoulders of giants. Time to ack them.
For my own open source libraries, I have made a conscious decision to say "I don't care". And the language in which I'm saying it is legalese. It's all in the license.
If I felt that people should give me a cut of any commercial software they build on top of my library then I would try to express that in my choice of license.
I have the same view on my own FOSS work (also expressed in its license) and generally also don't think that FOSS authors should feel that their users are obligated to give them anything (beyond the conditions of the license).
Though we as a community can still have views regarding kids hacking things trying to profit off decades of hard work by a large community. Different if they contribute back obvioisly. There are lots of compromise models out there.
> and now I'm expected to give $30 to the person who only contributed that last piece?
No, you are not expected to pay $30 to anybody.
If the distribution of the money make you unhappy, just pay $30 to this guy and $30 to the other project (or $150 using a x5 ratio sugested in other comment).
Or you can use the free CLI, or a free alternative.
Even better, you can write a free clone of this app and distribute it for free. Just remember to choose the licence carefuly. You'd probably like AGPL that makes comercial use very difficult.
Software isn't a one time use commodity. Other people can make UIs - guess why people still buy them! And if you're mad about commercialization, then they should have chosen a different license. You are paying for the UI, and only the UI.
Making a good user interface is definitely not easy. Yet it's orders of magnitude easier than writing ffmpeg.
That said, there is nothing wrong with a paid wrapper around a large and complex open source library. Distributing their work more widely is not a disservice.
> Yet it's orders of magnitude easier than writing ffmpeg.
If there's one thing that I've learned, is that "It Depends™" is my mantra.
ffmpeg is the sharp end of years of work by a whole lot of folks. It isn't just a single developer's "pet project" (although its originator[0] deserves enormous heaps of credit). It has been maintained by a whole community of really good (and dedicated) developers (and people with all kinds of other skills)[1].
It's not just a library. It's a platform. People have made entire (lucrative) careers, from just "tuning" ffmpeg.
Because of the infrastructure provided by ffmpeg, people can build some really useful implementations, and create focused applications.
I have found that making an approachable interface for a complex substrate, can be incredibly valuable, and definitely worth paying for. It can often mean the difference between soaring success, and miserable failure.
"Easier" is in the eye of the beholder. Ever watch a really, really experienced studio musician at work? They sit down, and in five minutes, your scratches on a piece of paper, take on a magical aspect. They make it look absurdly easy, but that comes from intense practice. There was a documentary (don't remember the name), about a bunch of major musicians, that came out of the California scene, in the late 1960s/early 1970s. In it, there was a discussion about someone (I think it may have been one of the Grateful Dead, or Eagles), that lived above Jackson Browne, who is a very successful singer and songwriter (BTW: The "songwriter" part is the bit that makes the money). They talk about hearing him practice, as he was developing songs. He'd play just a few bars, over, and over, and over again, until he got it right.
Songwriters and studio musicians may not be able to command roaring crowds at Glastonbury, but they can give you the album that you'll need, to get that crowd to show up, in the first place. So success requires contributions from many different places, and each has its own measure.
Water is free, but you pay some company because they bottled it. While free, it would have cost most people a ton to go find a source and carry it back. These wrappers are a good thing.
If you're concerned about open and free software I'm not sure using iOS makes a lot of sense. Of all mobile and desktop platforms, iOS has the highest barrier to entry for the free utilities you're hoping to find. Were you surprised you couldn't find your free utility on iOS?
The authors and maintainers of foundational code/utilities like ffmpeg/curl/etc. should definitely be the ones who have all the riches they could ever want. Thousands have made fortunes off of their work.
That said, what's the free and open source version of this tool? There are some great open source video editors like Shotcut, Openshot, KDENLive, Blender, etc., but I think this tool is more like CyberChef for video?
>what's the free and open source version of this tool?
PowerToys is Free and Open Source, and has at minimum an image resizer utility. It's a good starting point for adding on richer functionality like a preview GUI, and I'm sure that the basic video and audio manipulation would be appreciated as additions. Also since it's a Microsoft sponsored project, I imagine that the signing process is drastically different than what OP has experienced.
I know that's really not satisfying to say that "someday we could have this in the FOSS space", but everything starts somewhere.
Though editors like Shotcut and KDENLive are considered non linear since you can layer on different effects, while OP's utility is definitely not that.
Perhaps the author would consider open sourcing if they received financial compensation for their work to date? Crowdfunding or retroactive grants can liberate code.
Context: a big chunk of my 2024 income was from grant money to build open source software that I may have tried to monetize otherwise. It’s possible.
I think you have a warped perspective. Not everyone has the time or skills to use CLI tools. People will pay to save time. The market is multi faceted and complex and there's a market for everything. In this case you're just not the customer.
Making a friendly interface that doesn’t require the user to have to install a new tool is a value-add. Maybe the average power-user doesn’t need it, but it doesn’t seem entirely sinister.
I’m actually really fond of the model: here are the tools you can do anything with them but here is packed bundles that do something and the ecosystem is funded by selling bundles which often are just a UX for the tools and having them preconfigured.
Gives everyone the option of picking free or paid options, depending on people’s needs.
Upvoting you because my comment saying the same thing is getting downvotes and I really think the message is important.
However I don't think it's fair to call this a "shallow wrapper". It's clear that a lot of work went into the design of this GUI and, and making user-friendly interfaces is also an important work (that is far too often overlooked in the open sources communities).
Yet the fact that FFmpeg, the tool that does all the heavy background work, isn't even mentioned anywhere on the website, even in the FAQ or the footer is at least a non-negligible ethical problem.
UPDATE: The same goes for ImageMagick that I just saw this app installs and uses too.
I have not downloaded the app, so I don't know what it contains.
The licenses for both ffmpeg and ImageMagick do not require anyone to mention them in the website.
However, if they are being re-distributed, there are clear obligations for providing source code and attributions. Omitting to do so is a violation of the legal obligations.
Consider that someone talented enough to write a library probably has a much higher salary potential than a front-end hacker. Shouldn't the latter be allowed to eat, as undignified as you may find it?
Decades ago we were calling out these software and now it’s the norm.
Another example along the line: I wanted to extract a frame from a video on iOS, it’s impossible with the built-in tools (screenshot aside) and found that someone built a paid app only for that.
I tell you where we’re heading, we’re screwed.