Hey everyone, I’ve used Shotcut for a few years now and I think it’s great software, but I believe it’s time to take it to the next level with its own marketplace. So i intend to build one. I’ve realized that the most successful video software whether opensource or not, all have one thing in common, a Marketplace, for users to buy and sell stuff related to or that extends that software, like plugins, add-ons, filter UIs, presets, artwork, Video templates, and stock media.
For example, Wordpress and Adobe After Effects are successful and widely adopted due to all the templates, plugins, and themes available to new and advanced users alike.
I believe that Shotcut can benefit immensely from a marketplace, in many ways, including the following:
Faster adoption by new users - A user of a new piece of software is more likely to adopt it, if it already has a good template marketplace collection/resource available that they can use to get started quickly, reducing their learning curve.
Time saver for existing users - Even experienced users benefit from a marketplace where they can purchase premade resources to speed up their workflow.
Exposure and awareness for the Shotcut Project - Since everything in the marketplace requires Shotcut to function, even visitors who have never heard of Shotcut would inevitably have to download and install, it to use any of the marketplace items, thereby increasing the software’s reach.
Funding for Shotcut - Even, software projects need funding to thrive and innovate. So 20% of Profits from the marketplace will be donated back to the project.
Reward Shotcut enthusiasts and developers - The creative Shotcut community will now have an outlet to make money and profit from their unique creations and hard work.
If this sounds like I good idea to the developers and the community, then I’ll invest resources in building the Shotcut marketplace.
In an open source application, I prefer that the features be included for free. As an example that you offer, I think that many wordpress plugins are free - or have a free version. Shotcut is released under the GPLv3. I do not know if that license is compatible with closed source plugins.
In order to be compatible with a market place (or add-on repository), Shotcut would also need a plugin/add-on system designed into the application and underlying framework. Is that something you would also be able to invest in? A plugin framework does make it nice so that users only need to install the features that they are interested in.
Great point Brian, and I agree, Shotcut is licensed under the GPL, hence any templates or items in the marketplace would be licensed under the GPL as well. also, a plugin framework would be nice, but there is really no need to go that far just yet.
I am more focused on the types of items end-users and folks with beginner to intermediate level knowledge of Shotcut can create, such as video Title templates, intro templates, opener Templates, premade video ad templates, etc.
As those typically form the majority of content available in a marketplace for a video software. Typically any asset that you could just pop into the editor, customize it and render.
For Instance, Adobe After effects is pretty pricey and has a very steep learning curve for the average person, yet it has grown to be one of the most widely used editors on the planet with tens of millions of users, simply because it has a ton of marketplaces that allow any novice user to buy a readymade template project, make a few tweaks and render a great looking video in minutes.
This is the same ease and speed I intend to adopt for Shotcut. New users will be happy to jump on board the Shotcut train if they see premade templates that will make their lives easier.
please forgive my directness.
To me your arguments sound more like a ‘sales pitch’. Even the often mentioned word “marketplace” leaves me with critical thoughts.
You compare the way the assets work in one of the leading commercial film editing programs, which have a completely different architecture in place, with easy transferability in SHOTCUT:
"…
“Typically any asset that you could just pop into the editor, customize it and render…”
That won’t work in SHOTCUT.
For example, to create 3rd lower effects in SHOTCUT, you need several layers with filters, keyframes and masks over the film content. And to transfer this effect ‘simply’ for other films later remains difficult.
You should also know how SHOTCUT works in the background, - so we also have a number of assets that run via WebVfx.
So I doubt that a plug-in framework is programmed specifically for this purpose.
Hello @DvS
Interesting take, while I do concur with your example that transferring a lower 3rd effect in SHOTCUT, with several layers with filters, keyframes and masks would be difficult. I do feel that’s still ok. Even After Effects, for example, uses multiple layers and keyframes to do even the most basic stuff, and it’s fine.
This doesn’t stop a creator from creating a Shotcut Lower 3rd template or other effects like a logo reveal which a SHOTCUT end-user can simply then buy, edit the text and colors, render and use in their other projects.
To be frank, reading the proposal, it comes to my mind that you have not understood anything about what Shotcut is.
I also do not understand why this proposal is published in the user forum instead of being offered seriously to the people responsible for the Shotcut project.
I do not know. I think I’m becoming obsolete in understanding how business is done today.
This is an interesting proposal, and one that’s not without precedent. I’m not an expert in the subject, but I’m under the impression that you can own/license something you created with free software. You should be able to sell things that you make with it, even if you can’t sell the software itself. A template or preset is just something you created with that software. Things like plugins and UI’s really are just separate pieces of software that work within Shotcut. But they’re not Shotcut, and you as the creator can license them however you wish.
It’s my unprofessional and unqualified opinion that there is nothing in the GPL license that prevents you from doing this. People make money using free software all the time. However, I’m willing to change my position if someone has concrete evidence to the contrary.
@ejmillan
Hi, I actually did send a private message to the Shotcut admins, I’m sure they will chime in here too. Brian already did.
I decided to post this in the forum because I wanted to get a feel for whether the community was interested in a Shotcut marketplace before I went ahead and invested resources in building one.
I think your proposal to give 20% back to the project would go a long ways toward winning over some users. Personally, I’d be interested to see how this goes. I think you’d have interest well beyond just the active users in this forum.
I might also suggest expanding your marketplace to other FOSS video editors. K-12 educators (my profession) have been using OpenShot more and more to edit their video lessons. When school opens this fall, we’re likely going to be using a hybrid classroom/online instructional model. They’re always in the market for things to spice up their presentation or make their workflow go a little faster/easier. I can see little cutsie transitions, overlays, etc… that are sold for a couple of USD being well worth creating for that audience. Just a thought.
The increase in users of video editors and educational content creation platforms will increase due to the Covid-19 situation.
This will give an initial boost to the use of the various free video editors, such as Shotcut and others.
Surely the existence of content (templates and so on) will make life easier for these new users who have just landed, what I still don’t understand is why someone would want to pay, for various add-ons, money that they don’t invest in a commercial video editor that already includes templates?
I myself have several versions of Cyberlink Power Editor. They include several GB of content as well as a huge amount of templates and effects. There is also access to DirectorZone for downloading content shared by other users.
I guess other video editors have something similar.
The shift in business from commercial software to subscriptions also streamlines access to large amounts of effects for an affordable monthly price.
In the Cyberlink example, the Director Suite 365 subscription costs $8/month and includes unlimited access to sound packages, plugins, transitions, PIP elements, project templates, etc.
Thus, if the use of the software by the end user is expected to be constant (such as teachers) a subscription can be a better business than for a one-time user. The template market is already overtaken by the subscription model like the one I have discussed (and surely other video publishers have similar subscription models with customer-friendly content as well)
I don’t currently have a compelling need to edit videos (it’s not my job, it’s a hobby) so I don’t plan on tying myself to a subscription, but if that were the case and I had to use the software for the job and I didn’t have the time to create effects, templates, transitions and so on, I would eventually choose to pay for a subscription that included a library of important content.
In terms of cost effectiveness and amortization of my time (time is money), it would be more profitable.
Hey Rick, Thanks a lot. I think you really get what exactly i’m trying to build. I’m glad someone finally gets it. I think i really needed that bit of encouragement. So which do you think is better, setting up seperate marketplaces for each of the most common GPL video editors or, just one main marketplace for all?
My healthy pessimism says (and I don’t mean that specifically personal):
I don’t trust a rethorically trained person with a suit, tie and toothpaste smile when it comes to goal-oriented business.
And of course, - Mr. uche40 did not come completely unprepared, because he already has something in his drawer, which he has certainly already submitted to the developers by private message.
So the absolute priority would be the transparency of the “plug-in” source codes, so that one can see how SHOTCUT is further influenced.
I don’t think of any subscriptions or add-ons that have to be done live and online, because I use SHOTCUT exclusively offline and I want it to stay that way.
By the way:
The time when this is offered to us seems suspicious to me, - especially because the support of Ot 5.9 LTS ended in May which is discussed here in detail:
Really, and I don’t know if this will be the case, but there is bait everywhere. People trying to do business with the current needs of the pandemic is legal, but it doesn’t seem right to disguise it as something else.
We can argue the suitability or not (for each one) on certain aspects that are exposed here, but this is not really the purpose of this thread.
The purpose is: find out if the Shotcut user niche is open to spending money on a template and content market.
You might think: what better place to find this out than in the user forum?
However, here are users who, in a show of generosity, offer content and resources in a completely disinterested way.
From the cool compilations of transitions, to the graphical interface programming for filters that are not / were in the default installation in Shotcut. Without forgetting WebVfx, as is well noted in the previous message.
These users do not do marketing, they do not do previous surveys for business and that is why I keep saying that perhaps you did not understand what Shotcut is (or at least you have not delved into the history of this community)
There is no add-on system. This thread explored the idea of creating a plug-in system so that a content marketplace could be possible. To my knowledge, this was never actually created.
