[Feature Request] Multi-Device Sync and Paid App Version

[rebelliouswhiz]

First of all, great app!

I was looking for an option that's faster than Adguard and more customizable than Wipr2. Here it comes wBlock!

However, I do appreciate the Multi-Device Sync Wipr offers. Would it be possible to have it?

Additionally, I would love to have a paid app version for wBlock to support your work!

[0xCUB3]

This is definitely something in the pipeline. As for the paid version, perhaps I will just add a link to my donation page.

[jj-jaguar]

This is definitely something in the pipeline. As for the paid version, perhaps I will just add a link to my donation page.

Thanks for not making this app paid. If wBlock ever becomes paid, there would be no real difference between it and AdGuard or Wipr 2.

One of the main reasons uBlock Origin is the best is because it’s completely free and open source. If wBlock becomes paid, I’d have no reason to keep using it. I would just switch to uBlock Origin instead.

[rebelliouswhiz]

Thanks for not making this app paid. If wBlock ever becomes paid, there would be no real difference between it and AdGuard or Wipr 2.

One of the main reasons uBlock Origin is the best is because it’s completely free and open source. If wBlock becomes paid, I’d have no reason to keep using it. I would just switch to uBlock Origin instead.

I honestly disagree. wBlock has its own uniqueness and is worth paying for. Wipr 2 offers a hands-free and straightforward setup. AdGuard is backed by a company (though their iOS/Mac version suck).

Being completely free and open source is a great advantage, but suggesting that you don't want to buy at least a coffee (USD 5, as Wipr 2 costs) for people who did good work and benefit the community does not sound right.

I continue to suggest that offering a paid option (or a paid version identical to the free version) would provide a sustainable route for great open-source developers.

[jj-jaguar]

Thanks for not making this app paid. If wBlock ever becomes paid, there would be no real difference between it and AdGuard or Wipr 2.
One of the main reasons uBlock Origin is the best is because it’s completely free and open source. If wBlock becomes paid, I’d have no reason to keep using it. I would just switch to uBlock Origin instead.

I honestly disagree. wBlock has its own uniqueness and is worth paying for. Wipr 2 offers a hands-free and straightforward setup. AdGuard is backed by a company (though their iOS/Mac version suck).

Being completely free and open source is a great advantage, but suggesting that you don't want to buy at least a coffee (USD 5, as Wipr 2 costs) for people who did good work and benefit the community does not sound right.

I continue to suggest that offering a paid option (or a paid version identical to the free version) would provide a sustainable route for great open-source developers.

With that logic, there shouldn’t be any free or open source projects at all. By that logic, VLC Player should cost $30 per month. Lichess.org should charge $14.99 per month like Chess.com. OBS should cost $50 per month, even though many streamers make millions using it, yet it is still free. 7-Zip should cost $29.99 like WinRAR. And PixelPlayer should cost $20 too, considering how good it is and how many features it has.

You get the point. Just because something is amazing does not mean it has to be paid. Every app offers something unique, but that does not mean it must be locked behind a paywall. If that were the case, nothing would be free in this world and everything would turn into a mess.

By that logic, if someone asked me for directions on the road, I should say, “At least buy me a coffee first before asking for directions. (USD 5)”

With all due respect, if you believe everything should be paid, then GitHub probably is not for you. You should go somewhere else.

[rebelliouswhiz]

With that logic, there shouldn’t be any free or open source projects at all. By that logic, VLC Player should cost $30 per month. Lichess.org should charge $14.99 per month like Chess.com. OBS should cost $50 per month, even though many streamers make millions using it, yet it is still free. 7-Zip should cost $29.99 like WinRAR. And PixelPlayer should cost $20 too, considering how good it is and how many features it has.

You get the point. Just because something is amazing does not mean it has to be paid. Every app offers something unique, but that does not mean it must be locked behind a paywall. If that were the case, nothing would be free in this world and everything would turn into a mess.

By that logic, if someone asked me for directions on the road, I should say, “At least buy me a coffee first before asking for directions. (USD 5)”

With all due respect, if you believe everything should be paid, then GitHub probably is not for you. You should go somewhere else.

I am not sure if we are arguing the same thing.

I did not say "there shouldn’t be any free or open source projects at all", that's just your assumption. And the argument behind your assumption is faulty.

If wBlock ever becomes paid, there would be no real difference between it and AdGuard or Wipr 2.

Here's your original argument. I argue that this is not correct because they are fundamentally different in design concepts and approaches. However, I now understand your point that the only difference you see is between "paid" and "not paid", which, unfortunately, I found to be very shallow.

With that logic, there shouldn’t be any free or open source projects at all.

This is also a very shallow understanding of open source. You can enjoy the free and open-source projects you mentioned at no cost because someone has already paid them for you.

Just by digging a little bit more, it's not difficult to find lichess.org has a yearly cost about $65,000.00. Now, gentleman, please tell me, if there's no proper funding, how can you expect a developer to continue developing 15+ years free of charge for their great services?

If you do not want to pay, that is fine. But discriminating against those people who are willing to pay and support a great community project is not very civil.

You get the point. Just because something is amazing does not mean it has to be paid. Every app offers something unique, but that does not mean it must be locked behind a paywall. If that were the case, nothing would be free in this world and everything would turn into a mess.

I actually agree that "Just because something is amazing does not mean it has to be paid. Every app offers something unique, but that does not mean it must be locked behind a paywall." But I sincerely invite you to read my comment thoroughly, since I did not suggest "it must be locked behind a paywall." But honestly speaking, it's really not up to me or you to decide. It's up to the developer alone.

By that logic, if someone asked me for directions on the road, I should say, “At least buy me a coffee first before asking for directions. (USD 5)”

With all due respect, if you believe everything should be paid, then GitHub probably is not for you. You should go somewhere else.

Sorry, your logic is questionable, and your conclusion here is irrelevant. And by suggesting to me that GitHub is not for me might suggest a different truth: free open source is probably not for you. What you are looking for is "free" as in "free beer" or "no cost, or I will go somewhere else", not the essence of the free and open source community: "free" as in "freedom".

Letting you download from App Store itself costs $99 per year. I think if you are not willing to buy the developer a coffee, the developer also has no liability to provide a free option.

I continue to stand on the ground, suggesting a paid option, while keeping an identical free option, to continue motivating developer's work. But that's entirely up to the developer.

Please donate something before arguing back. It's not noble to suggest someone leave a community while being only a taker and proud of it.

[jj-jaguar]

With that logic, there shouldn’t be any free or open source projects at all. By that logic, VLC Player should cost $30 per month. Lichess.org should charge $14.99 per month like Chess.com. OBS should cost $50 per month, even though many streamers make millions using it, yet it is still free. 7-Zip should cost $29.99 like WinRAR. And PixelPlayer should cost $20 too, considering how good it is and how many features it has.
You get the point. Just because something is amazing does not mean it has to be paid. Every app offers something unique, but that does not mean it must be locked behind a paywall. If that were the case, nothing would be free in this world and everything would turn into a mess.
By that logic, if someone asked me for directions on the road, I should say, “At least buy me a coffee first before asking for directions. (USD 5)”
With all due respect, if you believe everything should be paid, then GitHub probably is not for you. You should go somewhere else.

I am not sure if we are arguing the same thing.

I did not say "there shouldn’t be any free or open source projects at all", that's just your assumption. And the argument behind your assumption is faulty.

If wBlock ever becomes paid, there would be no real difference between it and AdGuard or Wipr 2.

Here's your original argument. I argue that this is not correct because they are fundamentally different in design concepts and approaches. However, I now understand your point that the only difference you see is between "paid" and "not paid", which, unfortunately, I found to be very shallow.

With that logic, there shouldn’t be any free or open source projects at all.

This is also a very shallow understanding of open source. You can enjoy the free and open-source projects you mentioned at no cost because someone has already paid them for you.

Just by digging a little bit more, it's not difficult to find lichess.org has a yearly cost about $65,000.00. Now, gentleman, please tell me, if there's no proper funding, how can you expect a developer to continue developing 15+ years free of charge for their great services?

If you do not want to pay, that is fine. But discriminating against those people who are willing to pay and support a great community project is not very civil.

You get the point. Just because something is amazing does not mean it has to be paid. Every app offers something unique, but that does not mean it must be locked behind a paywall. If that were the case, nothing would be free in this world and everything would turn into a mess.

I actually agree that "Just because something is amazing does not mean it has to be paid. Every app offers something unique, but that does not mean it must be locked behind a paywall." But I sincerely invite you to read my comment thoroughly, since I did not suggest "it must be locked behind a paywall." But honestly speaking, it's really not up to me or you to decide. It's up to the developer alone.

By that logic, if someone asked me for directions on the road, I should say, “At least buy me a coffee first before asking for directions. (USD 5)”
With all due respect, if you believe everything should be paid, then GitHub probably is not for you. You should go somewhere else.

Sorry, your logic is questionable, and your conclusion here is irrelevant. And by suggesting to me that GitHub is not for me might suggest a different truth: free open source is probably not for you. What you are looking for is "free" as in "free beer" or "no cost, or I will go somewhere else", not the essence of the free and open source community: "free" as in "freedom".

Letting you download from App Store itself costs $99 per year. I think if you are not willing to buy the developer a coffee, the developer also has no liability to provide a free option.

I continue to stand on the ground, suggesting a paid option, while keeping an identical free option, to continue motivating developer's work. But that's entirely up to the developer.

Please donate something before arguing back. It's not noble to suggest someone leave a community while being only a taker and proud of it.

See, I don’t think you understood the point I was making. As you mentioned, Lichess.org costs around $790,000 per year to run, (Btw, not $65,000/year). And yet, the entire platform runs purely on donations, which is honestly impressive. They could easily add a subscription like many other sites do, but then they would not be any different from Chess.com. That is exactly what makes Lichess unique.

Again, just because a product is amazing and unique does not mean it has to be paid. You may agree or disagree, that is your opinion. But when you say, “I continue to stand on the ground, suggesting a paid option,” the developer has already made it clear that he does not want to implement one, as stated in his post above. I do not think anyone else has the authority to push him to do so. He already provides a donation link, and if you care that much, you can simply donate.

Saying “please donate something before arguing back” makes no sense. First of all, I do not have to pay to talk on GitHub. Second, just because someone donated $10 does not mean they need to show it off by putting their name under donations (not referring to you specifically). That kind of mindset is honestly very cheap. And lastly, you do not even know whether I donated or not.

[rebelliouswhiz]

See, I don’t think you understood the point I was making. As you mentioned, Lichess.org costs around $790,000 per year to run, (Btw, not $65,000/year). And yet, the entire platform runs purely on donations, which is honestly impressive. They could easily add a subscription like many other sites do, but then they would not be any different from Chess.com. That is exactly what makes Lichess unique.

Again, just because a product is amazing and unique does not mean it has to be paid. You may agree or disagree, that is your opinion. But when you say, “I continue to stand on the ground, suggesting a paid option,” the developer has already made it clear that he does not want to implement one, as stated in his post above. I do not think anyone else has the authority to push him to do so. He already provides a donation link, and if you care that much, you can simply donate.

Saying “please donate something before arguing back” makes no sense. First of all, I do not have to pay to talk on GitHub. Second, just because someone donated $10 does not mean they need to show it off by putting their name under donations (not referring to you specifically). That kind of mindset is honestly very cheap. And lastly, you do not even know whether I donated or not.

OK.