• @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    -11 year ago

    Most of these apps had subscriptions already in place. All they had to do was remove the free access and maybe increase the subscription price a bit to $5/month (I’m not sure what they were charging before).

    • @Stumblinbear@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      They also had ads, which they’d no longer gain revenue from. Ads can pull in $3-5 per month per user. That’s a massive loss.

          • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            Apart from the ones that pay. You only need to look at any of the sync posts on here to see there are many, many of them.

            • @Stumblinbear@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Ad revenue very often dwarfs the income from subscribing users by a huge margin. Sure, a single user subscribing pays for themselves plus a little extra, but your free users make up 70-80% of your revenue

              • @Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                Sure, but again - removing the app takes away 100% of the revenue. Keeping it as subscription only gets you some revenue. Some > none.

                • @Stumblinbear@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The amount of people that subscribe would likely not pay for the ongoing maintenance costs unless he’s willing to work for shit pay. Every hour he puts into maintenance is an hour he didn’t put into maintenance the other version that actually pays well enough