probably everyone would end up going broke but i would love to see a simulation of it, if not a real experiment.
i know nickel transactions costs a dime to process, but if it was cheap we could have new ways of having new things.
Probably shouldn't subscribe then ...
If I subscribe to a magazine or a streaming service, I continually get new content. Apps that aren't doing that are basically price gouging customers.
If it’s not a price you’re willing to pay, that’s fine. But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator.
Since we're apparently now doing Freshman Civics:
There are many sorts of transactions that someone would get value from and think are a fair trade, but are prohibited for one reason or another.
Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social.
Yeah, and there's also no rule that says that other people can't tell you to shut up.
Seems like a risk to the author. Keeping existing customers is typically easier than getting new ones.
That being said, OP should probably realize a lot of people don't pay for software--even in HN.
That's why OP needs to make sure the users are the product and find some way to sell the user data to advertisers.
OP should contact restaurants and allow them to place ads in the recommendations. He should also sell access to user data and allow restaurants and advertisers to target free users.
He can have a subscription tier that gives you privacy.
> There doesn't need to be any justification. If that's what OP wants to charge then that's reason enough.
Yep, makes sense.
> That being said, OP should probably realize a lot of people don't pay for software--even in HN.
Indeed. Maybe people pay even less on HN, seeing as many of us can hack together something for personal use.
> That's why OP needs to make sure the users are the product and find some way to sell the user data to advertisers.
Er…
> OP should contact restaurants and allow them to place ads in the recommendations. He should also sell access to user data and allow restaurants and advertisers to target free users.
Wait, what? This is app for eating at home, restaurants have nothing to do with it.
> He can have a subscription tier that gives you privacy.
Full-on dystopia.
It's not the customer's job to pay you forever bc Apple wants a developer license. It's the business's job to make sure it's sustainable with the costs that it has / has chosen to bear.
That's the backpressure on business models - they're not all viable. Just because you _could_ add in a bunch of servers and cloud costs and whatever, doesn't mean it's inherently justified.
The problem is more that it's gotten _so_ cheap to run, that charging each user a seemingly-nominal 5c/day fee doesn't feel bad to an average person for a chance at value. And at scale you get enough people who figure "ah it's not that much", and end up with massive profit margins. Profiting off the disparity between the individual choice and the aggregate.