I loathe apps that want a subscription for such a trivial concept. Why did you choose this route over ad support or one time payment?
It's typically much harder to acquire new users than retain current users = subscription model allows you to monetize your userbase over a broader period of time (let's say $5/mo * 6 mo = $30) to a value that would likely be cost-prohibitive. Most users would not spend $30 for this app. But they might sign up for a free trial, and then the $5 subscription.
That’s a shame because it seems like you did the smart and effective solution without wasting your time. A/B testing isn’t needed if the signal is clear enough (¡parachute testing!), and it is hard to get enough samples for a weak signal. Good on you.
If your core customer base pulls in 4 or 5 figures a month from their own hustle, they might be willing to pay up to $15/month for features tailor-made for their needs.
Not saying there aren't people who truly like it. There are. But not everyone who uses it does.
Your comment might apply to addictive games, but you are being extremely dismissive towards a creative app that isn’t designed to be a slot machine. Who are you to tell others how to spend their time or money?
It's really that simple...
For me, .15 a day is negligible. I can easily imagine someone who creates memes for social media choosing to pay that, especially if they feel there is value in supporting the creator. Memes aren't frivolity any more than other content - they're one of the most popular forms of communication on the internet.
2. When it's a subscription as a customer you have more trust that it will continue working. When it's a one time purchase, who knows how long it will last.
Funny, for me this is the total opposite: subscription software may end any time and then you got nothing. One time purchased software you can just continue to use. Well, I guess in the games of rent-seeking, cloud-only, security and updates the viability of this is fading...
What's the difference?
You charge what people are willing to pay, not how much you think your product is worth.
Your product is worth what people are willing to pay.
Not OP but to counterpoint: I loathe apps that want to be supported by ads. Give me a one-time payment or a subscription. Let me choose if your service if worth paying for. If it's not worth paying for then it's also not worth ads. I'll use adblockers and use your service without ads anyway or else not use it at all.
1. Non-personalized (non-intrusive) ads
2. One time payment
3. Yearly subscription
4. Ads that mine Bitcoin or otherwise make use of my compute resources
5. Monthly subscription
6. Personalized, intrusive ads
I will go out of my way to actively avoid 4-6. For 3 it would hav to be DAMN good software.
Spyvertising is that, but at an industrial scale. If one's creepy and ought to warrant intervention by law enforcement, the other's much, much worse.
E.g. when I look at code I don't want ads for photography equipment, but ads for coding courses or books may be juuust acceptable. It also has the nice benefit of not needing personalization, so the sibling comments' points are also included.
Are you for real?
Want to know what your employer has you working on? Let's see what searches you've done.
Want to know what your employees are doing? Let's see what things they're buying.
Fuck that obnoxious bullshit.
You probably don't want your employer to know that you have cancer, are hiding a fling, and could soon have family problems requiring you to take a leave of absence.
- I think it should be my right to share the details of my work with anyone.
- It's already illegal to discriminate against people because they have cancer, and I don't think that imperfect enforcement of privacy on the internet is going to significantly affect anyone's chances of this happening to them.
- If someone does something and faces consequences for it, I don't think that's a bad thing.
Honestly seeing people's responses here and elsewhere on the internet is kind of a Kafkaesque experience for me because everyone seems so convinced that internet privacy is valuable yet no one seems to actually have thought through their position (no offense to you personally). I guess I can only conclude that my base values differ in this area.
I agree! So why are you letting third parties get that information without you having any ability to provide or decline consent?
> It's already illegal to discriminate against people because they have cancer, and I don't think that imperfect enforcement of privacy on the internet is going to significantly affect anyone's chances of this happening to them.
You think people don't do things that are illegal?
> no one seems to actually have thought through their position
Can you explain that better?
> I guess I can only conclude that my base values differ in this area.
I think that much is clear.
- it is also illegal to steal from homes. Do you lock your front door?
That’s hypothetical but big publishers already make financial calculations about your profile based on your page visits. So the rest is extrapolation.
We have no control over the correctness of information and no way to correct it.