I really don't think its that simple. There's a pricing problem with SaaS products like Tinder which suggests that more people will pay if it is cheaper. And with Tinder Plus, they offer literally nothing different that would cost Tinder much more money; it just allows users to use the app more.

The problem with $20/mo is that its entering exploitation territory. Like a porn site subscription, it exploits chemical and physical addictions intrinsic to humans to derive revenue. You can say the same thing about, say, any addictive service (like Netflix) and you wouldn't be wrong. But at least Netflix prices at cost, not "value", and Tinder is literally playing with a biological drive and interpersonal relationships, not a simple dopamine addiction.

>But at least Netflix prices at cost

This must explain their terrible earnings and stock performance over the past decade or so.

What makes you think Netflix prices at cost?

They definitely price below cost right now, given their financial performance. But they're raising prices literally right now; they're working on averaging up the amount customers pay without shocking customers to better reflect the cost of their services.

In other words; a business fundamentally cannot price all of their customers below cost indefinitely, and Netflix is working in the right direction. On the other hand, you can price customers above cost if demand is there, and demand for Tinder is there because their business model relies on exploiting biological addictions in our brains.

Netflix does not price at cost.