Re:GDPR Hall of Shame
by lovich on Thursday May 24, 2018 @08:43AM
(#17143370)
Why? This seems like good behavior. They're original product is supported by a business model that relies on user data. Now they are offering a similar product that doesn't make money off of user data but instead charges the user. I am all for the GPDR, but the regulations don't say you can't suck up all user data _and_ you still have to provide your service for free/discounted
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I work for a competitor to sendwithus, and, while I can't speak to specifics or the industry as a whole, I can definitely say that it is proven possible to run a company whose revenue model is to charge something comparable to sendwithus's previous monthly subscription fees, be profitable, grow steadily, and not make a single dime on the side selling data to advertisers.
So you're saying user's data is worth $23052 per year?
Maybe, maybe not. If it's not I assume they'll be forced to lower their prices and go out of business. I don't have a problem with a company charging money for their product though.
The GDPR appears to be doing its job here because it's forcing a company out of a business model that is unethical and into one that's better for society, regardless of it's better or not for the company and some of its customers
Re:GDPR Hall of Shame
by Kpourdeilami on Thursday May 24, 2018 @09:09AM
(#17143580)
User data could or could not be worth that much. Having a team of programmers implementing and maintaining features that make the software GDPR compliant is perhaps the biggest contributing factor the price increase