> From an owner's perspective, I would never spend future revenue today. What if your not making enough money to pay the bills, yet have to give a percentage of revenue to a developer? They aren't going to stick around if things get tough.
If they developed the product that's producing said revenue, why does it matter whether they're still around?
Suppose that your product required an expensive piece of equipment and you didn't have enough cash to pay for it. (Or, you didn't want to pay cash.) Would you object to paying over time? Does the answer depend on whether the payments go to the manufacturer or a third-party?
Yes, you might well prefer terms with a fixed cost but there's a considerable risk that they'll get nothing and it's unlikely that they can reuse the code elsewhere. (Besides, you probably insisted on an exclusive license.)
If they developed the product that's producing said revenue, why does it matter whether they're still around?
Suppose that your product required an expensive piece of equipment and you didn't have enough cash to pay for it. (Or, you didn't want to pay cash.) Would you object to paying over time? Does the answer depend on whether the payments go to the manufacturer or a third-party?
Yes, you might well prefer terms with a fixed cost but there's a considerable risk that they'll get nothing and it's unlikely that they can reuse the code elsewhere. (Besides, you probably insisted on an exclusive license.)