One-time payment for ad-free is live in Beta 25. It's $19.99 USD. Update your app if you don't see it
One-time payment for ad-free is live in Beta 25. It's $19.99 USD. Update your app if you don't see it
ā¬1.55 in 2012 here
Granted, that was a steal compared to what I eventually got from it, but still ā¬20 for a Lemmy app feels incredibly steep. I was expecting something in the ā¬5 to ā¬10 range at most.
Iām not going to argue with what youāre happy to pay, Iām just curious why you are doing the math based on how much you use it instead of some other metric like the amount of labour it took to produce or maybe how much ad revenue you need to replace?
I see $23/year for a few years equaling the cost of outright owning a AAA video game (that will receive support and updates for years to follow too) that took millions of dollars and many thousands of man-hours to produce and it doesnāt add upā¦
I agree $20 isnāt all that much on its own (for a developer itās likely only a third of an hour really) but thatās kind of the point. One personās full-time development wage is less than that of 30 people, so why charge just as much just because the audience is much smaller? It seems what youāre saying is that Sync isnāt currently viable and needs to be over priced (for a comparable product) to survive.
Also, wouldnāt Sync be the equivalent of an indie game in this comparison? Why donāt those games have to charge more than the AAA games to make up for the smaller customer base?
Thereās a resource and human effort cost that is the backing behind the pricing of most things. Iām actually having a very difficult time thinking of something thatās priced strictly based on the time+enjoyment metric without factoring labour+material at all outside of maybe famous works or art or other things that are āvaluableā simply because they are rare. Are you able to provide an example of something commonly sold that would follow the time+enjoyment pricing scheme to help me wrap my head it?
A cruise and a staycation donāt cost the same even if theyāre for the same duration, even if you get sick on the cruise and have to cut the trip short. It feels like youāre saying āI actually really enjoy the staycation, and even though more resources go into a cruise, Iāll gladly pay more to stay at home then go on the cruiseā and that canāt possibly be what youāre sayingā¦
Iām actually having a very difficult time thinking of something thatās priced strictly based on the time+enjoyment metric without factoring labour+material
Just to be clear I think at a base level labour and material should still be taken into an account. The problem right now is these apps are essentially warring over your attention and in order to do so are hacking our ape brains. Now this isnāt necessarily a bad thing, that relationship can be somewhat symbiotic, we get entertainment they get ad revenue. However the situations gotten dire as they need to drive profits up and steal attention from each other and instead of innovating and progressing their platform theyāre maliciously implementing ways to keep you on their platform. We need to swap to a system thatās revolved around our money being spent where our enjoyment is at. This negates malicious ad revenue driven profits and might actually drive an era of innovation across big tech which hasnāt happened since the early 2010ās.
When talking directly about the fediverse, sure the devs love working on lemmy, but for how long. Quite frankly nobody will agree but we should be paying them to work on it as we should be paying instance admins in some capacity. This is an ad free experience we should really put our money where our mouth (enjoyment) is.
dns.aguard-dns.com and the ads will just be blank cuz theyāre blocked.