Most active commenters
  • stevage(3)

←back to thread

Blender 4.3

(www.blender.org)
239 points antome | 12 comments | 20 Nov 24 04:39 UTC | HN request time: 1.036s | source | bottom
Show context
stevage ◴[20 Nov 24 07:00 UTC] No.42191413[source]▶
It's really puzzling (but extremely welcome) that Blender continues to be such an open source success story. Seems rare for such complex pieces of software in a niche space to get that level of development. I wonder what the secret is.
replies(4): >>42191429 #>>42191493 #>>42191663 #>>42192364 #
1. greenknight ◴[20 Nov 24 07:04 UTC] No.42191429[source]▶
What really kickstarted their development... was the introduction of the Blender Development Fund -- https://fund.blender.org/

They made tiers, made it simple and easy, and promoted it.

Before the fund really was pushed... they were getting about 5,000 USD per month to develop it... Now it is sitting at 215,000 USD per month.

More money = More developers. More Developers = Better product.

Yes it didnt happen overnight that increase, but it was slow and steady.

replies(4): >>42191621 #>>42191945 #>>42192597 #>>42192781 #
2. iamgopal ◴[20 Nov 24 07:45 UTC] No.42191621[source]▶
tell me more or write a blog post.
3. prox ◴[20 Nov 24 08:47 UTC] No.42191945[source]▶
And apparently only 2% percent (according to their ad) donates. I wish people would be more in the “giving back” spirit. If you can afford a designer coffee, throw that money to the Blender Fund!

I donate yearly, and its worth it.

replies(4): >>42192035 #>>42192561 #>>42193718 #>>42202427 #
4. flohofwoe ◴[20 Nov 24 09:04 UTC] No.42192035[source]▶
I guess one very important part is that there are now pretty big companies which depend on Blender and have an interest in Blender's continued development.
replies(1): >>42192317 #
5. The_Colonel ◴[20 Nov 24 09:55 UTC] No.42192317{3}[source]▶
Right, that's exactly what separates Blender from e.g. GIMP.
6. Tomte ◴[20 Nov 24 10:31 UTC] No.42192561[source]▶
The more natural way for individuals is probably https://studio.blender.org/welcome/
7. diggan ◴[20 Nov 24 10:38 UTC] No.42192597[source]▶
> What really kickstarted their development... was the introduction of the Blender Development Fund -- https://fund.blender.org/

Before that, I'd say open sourcing the project is what really gave it a second wind.

If I remember a talk correctly by Ton Roosendaal, the company behind Blender development went bankrupt and development stopped for a while, as it was closed-source at that point. Eventually, he started a fundraiser to get funds to re-acquire Blender and open sourcing it (the goal being 100K EUR or something) which was successful and made Blender into the open source project we know today :)

8. jasode ◴[20 Nov 24 11:12 UTC] No.42192781[source]▶
>What really kickstarted their development... was the introduction of the Blender Development Fund [...]

>More money = More developers.

There was actually another "kickstart" before that kickstart.

Blender's open-source timeline has a very unusual history in that it was a commercial product funded by €4.5 million in VC capital. Those original investors lost their money by selling in a "down round" to a 2nd set of investors. Those later investors also then lost their money by selling back the source code for a discount of 100k EUR to today's non-profit Blender organization.

https://docs.blender.org/api/htmlI/x115.html

One of the reasons (but not the only reason) that other examples of open-source projects like ... Gimp lagging Photoshop, or FreeCAD not being as polished as Fusion360/SolidWorks ... is those tools never had millions in investor money paying the salaries of 50 developers to kickstart them. E.g. FreeCAD has a non-profit fund but it doesn't attract the same mindshare as Blender did in 2002: https://www.google.com/search?q=freecad+non-profit+fund

Just because Blender started a fund doesn't mean any open-source project can also just "start a development fund" and attract the same level of donations. Blender has some extra history and circumstances in the timeline of "cause & effect" that a random open-source project can't easily replicate.

Blender circa ~2002 had a level of mindshare + evangelism + momentum that most open-source projects do not have. Those ingredients have to be there first to help attract donations to the fund.

replies(2): >>42193712 #>>42196118 #
9. stevage ◴[20 Nov 24 13:21 UTC] No.42193712[source]▶
Ah, that's really interesting history, thank you. And confirms I'm not crazy - I had vaguely thought long ago that Blender cost money.
10. stevage ◴[20 Nov 24 13:22 UTC] No.42193718[source]▶
2% is a pretty high rate. It's pretty standard for 1% of any userbase to contribute in any way (including through content) to it.
11. dirkc ◴[20 Nov 24 17:18 UTC] No.42196118[source]▶
My takeaway from this is that there was a community of people willing to collectively pay 100k EUR and I'd say that was the biggest contributor to it's success - a large group of people seeing the value of the shared good.

I don't have examples at hand to point at, but I feel like there is/was several open source projects that did have the initial VC money, but fizzled out after the money was spent specifically because they got to a fairly polished point without really having a community

12. victornomad ◴[21 Nov 24 09:06 UTC] No.42202427[source]▶
Not really, their aim is to reach a 2%, I think the current number is waaaaaay lower. Ton Roosendaal mentioned it during the Blender Conference 2024 Keynote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ5022VaMmA&list=PLa1F2ddGya...