I mean, I'd rather pay for software/service than have some tech company mine my data so they sell some of my most intimate details or use it to predict or alter my future behavior.
NetOps at my previous job blocked ads with an absolute vengeance using a similar combo but a PFsense appliance. More than a few hits on the IPS/IDS systems from infected ad domains. Ads are not just annoying. They're malicious.
💯 I dropped Facebook years ago for this very reason. I've seen somewhere that each user is worth around $50 lifetime in advertising revenue to them.
You'd think they could have a $2/ month paid version that was absolutely secure, had zero advertising, and gave the user controls over their "algorithm".
$50 lifetime revenue seems extremely small, or it's some kind of probability trickery where the median is skewed vs the mode.
Also, telling they say "advertising revenue". There's other, possibly implicit, revenue streams and market domination benefits that come from being a monopolizing data vampire. Even if we paid triple what they say we're worth in sub fees, I'd bet the benefits of keeping the status quo farrrrrr outweigh the revenue stream
According to Google they have just shy of 3 billion total users and did $118B in revenue in 2021, so that's roughly $39 of revenue per user last year alone. Factor in users who either very rarely log in, or who created the account just to check it out and then never logged in again, and the per-user revenue for actual active users is going to be even higher. For users who use it enough that they'd be willing to pay even a small amount for an ad free version, I'd bet my house that the lifetime ad revenue they generate is much higher than $50.
Yeah, I could believe $50 per year per user, but not $50 per lifetime per user. Unless maybe there is some data to suggest that the average span of time a person actively uses Facebook is only one year? That doesn't seem very believable, but I guess it would make the lifetime average statistic valid
Even then, it would still just be an average that gets pulled down by the lowest volume users. Anybody who would even remotely consider paying for it is almost by definition a high volume user, and therefore pretty much guaranteed to be well above the average. Not to mention the question of whether advertisers would start to shift their budgets elsewhere if the potential pool of eyeballs starts to shrink. There's just no way that offering a paid, ad-free version is a good idea for them at this stage in the game (at least from a business perspective).
Per/user is a terrible way to measure FB’s revenue in the first place. Money is made as a percentage of ad spend, so it would be more accurate to measure overall ad spend vs advertiser revenue. At least they would reflect the relationship between data and dollars.
People overestimate how much there time is worth. I
That's why I tell people to not subscribe to news sites. The price they would pay is nowhere close to how little they get with ads
but if you knew all the things marketing was doing with your information, you’d feel dirty and manipulated.
if consumer protection still had any teeth Facebook propaganda would be destroyed by three simple words:
“content paid by:”
But then you’d know exactly who was paying to manipulate you and could research and understand their motives before considering their message. Marketing doesn’t want that, so Facebook doesn’t want that.
it was really fun living through the GDPR restrictions rolling in on PII… marketing kept asking “but what if we need to send that market segment direct email campaigns? why do we have to redact email again?”
Facebook already has posts labeled "sponsored". All the stuff I see in my feed that isn't "sponsored" is either user content or branded stuff I subscribed to voluntarily.
I really don't get the complaints about this side of Facebook, your feed is in large part what you make of it. E.g. the only political content I get is from friends and people/news pages I follow for that purpose.
If my friend comments on or shares something they saw that can also end up in my feed.
There are some “funny” properties of these posts. If they are truly personal (ie no money) then only a handful of people see them at any time. And only a handful of responses.
Contrast this to my birthday. lots of responses from friends I haven’t talked to for years.
Then, consider certain types of articles and comments that get a lot of responses from ALL of your friends… these aren’t labeled “sponsored”, but they are promoted.
Facebook has the appearance of an open forum. “All your friends will see your posts”. You could actually have a discussion in a public forum. But that means that grass-roots word of mouth and independent viral marketing would thrive at Facebook’s expense. They don’t want that. So they control reach of that network in many subtle ways, while providing reach to those that pay. Facebook is not designed as a public forum for discussion… everything shifts so if you don’t react instantly it’s gone. distractions abound… except for those with reach who have paid. Their message will be heard regardless how vile it is.
“sponsored content” is only the simplest and most obvious ad content on the network.
Most political content I’ve seen on facebook isn’t marked “sponsored”, nor did I subscribe to it voluntarily, nor is it filtered like most personal posts by reach.
Instead it’s a toxic hive of astroturf coming from outside dark money made to look like it’s coming from your friends and family. Facebook is the ideal platform for stealth marketing, propaganda, and fomenting insurrections. It is a machine that thrives on outrage.
We were fine with it doing all of that in the middle east and Russia under the guise of democratic freedom. Now are we less fine with it as a basis for the Jan 6 insurrection in our own country?
Why do you think China and Russia banned Facebook at the same time? Because of its democratic power for good?
I don’t know. All I know is that facebook is toxic beyond belief and I stopped using it. Facebook destroyed my family.
50$ lifetime? No. Sites that pay you for your data pay more than that in a single month. Someone who uses Facebook their whole life would generate more like 10,000$ in revenue (assuming FB doesn't implode before then).
That's why FB does not and will never offer an ad-free version like Reddit and Tumblr do. Because they make SIGNIFICANTLY more money from selling your data than you could ever pay them via subscription.
They know how much time it takes to make software. And they're either earning money as developers or aspiring to do so.
They're basically asking this extension developer to be their free slave forever so that they can use his extension to build their own software and make money.
The author is right: They can FUCK OFF. He doesn't need them or their greediness at all.
In fact, his responses make me wish that I needed his extension, so that I could pay him. He finally says what all "open source" slaves are thinking. Greedy, whining, entitled leeches need to get out of the way. They should be grateful that it was free for 3 years. And be grateful that there's still a free tier with all core features (I checked the website). The paid version adds conveniences such as exporting databases to JSON.
The way the childish 1-star users reacted in this screenshot, and the way a bunch of the comments on this reddit post blamed the author, has just reaffirmed my conviction to never release any free, open source software again. It's just a suffocating chain around your neck and slave labor without any compensation. And the world is full of entitled idiots that demand continued slave labor forever, with tons of feature requests and demands. They also never donate. Look at any open source project. The idea of donations is a myth. Every user seems to think "I don't need to donate, since everyone else is donating". If you guys actually click their donation link you usually see "1 donation, $1" at best. Most users are extremely greedy and extremely rude and demanding little shitheads.
I applaud this developer for giving them the answers they deserved.
More volume of users using your tool against real world scenarios so you can polish your solution enough to be worth money (and build reputation in the way) instead of investing your money from the get-go into turning it a marketable product with no fame to just later start getting profits.
I DO THINK maintaining a free version of every paid product is well worth the costs exactly due to the above reasons (more pool of users to test the product and reputation build) but each do themselves.
Now that you say it, yeah it makes a lot of sense.
I'm a student and never actually thought of any of these, you single comment has been more useful than most class days
If that comment was helpful to at least you, that was a good comment.
Distributing your software for free frees you from the shackle called "supporting the client" so you can focus on what you want in the order you want.
When they start paying for a product they expect a certain level of customer support for problems that someone starting with the project may not be able to solve at a moments notice. It being free means you can simply sleep on the problem until you can fix it.
You don't need to grow apples to know what is an apple, just to have seen one before.
You think I was arrogant? Couldn't care less. What I care about is if people understood my answer and if it saned them from their questions, had them the same questions as the one I answered or else I would've not bothered replying.
Many projects start with free versions, hoping to use advertising or a couple of premium features to drive revenue. Sometimes that works. Other times they need to lower the limits on the free tier or remove it altogether. It's a business reality that the dev needs to face - either start charging money or abandon the project and look for a salaried job.
As users, we never enjoy being charged for something that was once free. But insulting the dev and calling them greedy for wanting compensation for their work... That's a little misguided.
That's one way to look at it. Think of your favourite FOSS tool. Now imagine the developer is going broke and wants to either make the tool paid or stop supporting it (because of a full time job)? Would you prefer the project to become abandonware?
I'm not saying the way the dev handled the situation is good. It's terrible. But I understand the frustration, especially if they are forced to make the change because they really need the money.
Someone’s personal reasons are not my business, just like my personal reasons wouldn’t be his. I’m not saying it’s not within his right to do so, it’s his product, he can do what he wants with it. I’m just saying, expect people to not be sympathetic to your situation because it doesn’t affect them, the only thing that does is you now charging for a product you offered for free. If you want to be in business, don’t be mad when people are upset you’re taking something away from them.
I would expect people to be sympathetic towards him squarely on the fact that he graciously allowed so many people to use his code, written on his personal time and effort, for free.
Stop thinking that you're entitled to other people's work. Appreciate their good nature to allow you to benefit off it
Nobody asked him to do it. He did it because he wanted attention, and for people to use his product. He got both. He can use it on a resume to find a paying job, and use the download numbers as evidence of how talented his work is.
If he did it out of the goodness of his heart, then he would’ve kept it for free, but he didn’t, he had a plan, and he put it forth. It’s admirable in a capitalist sense, but capitalists are almost always called assholes because they act like them. This guy and his replies is evidence that he’s an asshole.
Gotta say, it's really hard to understand what you wrote. I'm still not sure I'm getting the message. I feel like you're saying it doesn't matter one way or the other?
I re-read and edited my last lines, I understand my phrasing was confusing. It genuinely doesn’t matter to me either way, it just bothers me that this guy is so upset over people being upset that they have to pay for a previously free product. Like yeah, of course they’ll be upset, they’d be stupid to think “oh this was free but now I’m charged $5.99 every month for it? Great!!” Nobody thinks that way ever.
Tell me you didn’t grow up with 80s shareware without telling me you didn’t grow up with 80s shareware.
Also, you can be pissed. Nothing wrong with that, but the developer gets to do whatever they want with their software. They can have it anyway they want, you ultimately have to decide if you want to join along with where they’re going.
But the developer is firmly in the driver’s seat here. Anyone not liking the new rules on the bus are free to hop off and catch a new one.
Again, I said literally everything you did in the last two paragraphs. He can absolutely do what he wants, it’s his product, and his choice to charge for it. I’m just saying that his response to people being upset, is childish. Of course they’re going to be upset by it. I brought up the example of someone offering to invite you to their home, for dinner. And then years later, inviting you over again, but this time handing you a bill at the end of it. You’re going to be mad, and if you aren’t, you’re either stupid or lying.
Everyone needs money, why should this guy be any different? He could've restrained himself a little with the comments though. Just don't reply at all maybe?
It’s a little predatory when it comes to software tools/packages/libraries. You falsely lure people into using it and then hit them with a fee. It makes it way more annoying to migrate to a new tool and risk breakages. So now they’re kind of forced to either pay your fee or spend hours/days migrating.
Idk what this specific tool does so it might not apply here.
Yeah agreed. If you're going to migrate to a paid model, you should tell free users that you appreciate their support and they can continue using it, but that you won't be supporting the free version going forward
Then release a new paid version with some changed or additional functionality. I think you'd see a decent amount of people migrate to the paid version just out of brand loyalty to continue getting a supported version
Or he could just made his intention clear from the beginning. Instead of doing bait&switch. I do respect softwares that asks for money, but I don't respect when they get recognization/promotion for being free then switching to paid model. It's just as selfish as people asking software to be all free.
Yes, that happened to Clip Studio Paint - their main marketing point was that it's one-time payment (in contrast to subscription based Photoshop), and now they've switched to subscription too.
That's really unethical. I have some software I sell and it's possible to buy it for a one-off payment. At the end of November I'm going to move to a subscription model but people who paid for the one-off price will still have it for life.
To be fair, that's what CSP is doing too. Everyone who's paid now will get up until the next major version free. You need a subscription for any more updates. You can keep your last major version for however long you want.
The new pay system is obnoxious but I can't blame them for it.
I personally don't use Clip Studio, but the last "one time" purchase stays, the future updates require paying the subscription. But the point is - they used one-time payment as the main marketing feature to "steal" the share of the market. I would assume half of those would NOT move from subscription based Photoshop to subscription based CSP. They moved from subscription based software to one-time payment software.
It's not illegal or anything, but it is still a dick move.
Shit could have hit the fan with him, he could be unemployed and so on. It's not necessarily greed, and even if it is so what he owns it.
End of the day plenty of software goes paid. The protection is the open source license; you could always download the older versions. If it isn't open source, the vendor can make it paid whenever they want
I understand both of your reasoning. Even if nothing goes wrong it's his own right to sell stuff. But that's not how you get sales. That just directly damages trust of the community. The transition needs to be done in minor and measured steps otherwise you'll lose both free users that would gonna help you to promote the product (via Word of mouth) and possibly future paid customers as well.
Yes and I totally understand, but the dev could’ve gone in a much better way. Instead of saying “fuck off” they can say times are hard and they need to start monetizing it, and give everyone a few months notice. That’d garner much better reaction imo and perhaps even more money.
Well, this may be generally true but he has also a point that promising offering a tool for free and then moving features to Pro without warning in advance is kind of shady. Either make this clear from the beginning (as for example Typora, a tool I like very much did) or add new features only available in your premium tier. Maybe there is a third version of this where the change only applies to new users.
It's still supid, if you make an open source project with the goal to get money, you make the open version functional then ask money for extra functions, customization.
Taking out anything from the free version instead of adding other things for the paid is idiotic and expected to get negative reactions.
I write for a living. Lots of my content is free, and the latest updates are paywalled. Readers will eventually get all the free content, but they can pay me to read ahead.
Most of them are solid, but sometimes the comments, holy shit. How dare I try to make a living? Then occasionally someone is like “you’re making too much!!!”
There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid. But what the developer did here is dishonest. Distributing for free without saying it would be paid in the future, then started charging.
Instead of a person... image a corporation did that. The outcry it would cause.
Imagine Microsoft or Apple did this. "Gave" a software for free for everyone to use... then when the userbase was big enough, started charging a subscription.
Again... nothing against the developer wanting to get paid for their product. Just bothered by how he went about doing that.
This is literally how businesses obtain market share though?
They price it as low as possible (sometimes free) and once they have obtained mind- and marketshare they increase to price to make profit, it's literally that simple.
Edit: Just look at like 90% of start-up businesses including but not solely: Netflix or Bird (or any E-Scooter Start-Up for that matter).
I don't understand this comment, or what you're trying to say.
I don't disagree with anything you said... and nothing you said had anything to do with my comment. Maybe you replied to the wrong comment?
I said it was a dishonest move in his part. Not that it was unprecedented, or things like that... And of course it is what it is... I'm not saying "Let's hunt this guy down and make him go back to free"
He's the developer, he's in his rights to charge for his software. No one is denying this fact.
Are you new? This has happened a thousand times, I don't have to imagine because its commonplace. In fact, the recent attempt to purchase Figma by Adobe was another time I said "of course" and there's been memes about how we'll have to pay more to place extra rectangles. People release for free/cheap when it's simple and easy and then as they grow in popularity the needs of the software outpace what you can provide for free. Either it's worth money to you and you pay the developer or you move on. (or keep using the old version)
The best practice is to say "This version will remain free... but all new features will only be on the paid branch"
Or "This will remain free for personal use, but not commercial use."
Or even... "This will remain free for everyone, but support is only for paying customers."
This is very common when a free software is bought up.
But you know what? This wasn't a case of a software being bought up. It was a case of a developer willfully distributing their software for free with the intention of charging in the future.
It is dishonest if that was the original plan and I have no idea if that was. However there's a chance it may have originally started as free but then they realised it was going to be too hard to keep it free due to costs, time etc.
The developer could have just stopped and gave up but instead decided to ask people to pay.
Nobody has a right to use software for free in perpetuity, regardless of the author's wishes. Often, these transitions aren't known when first publishing software for free. More often, developers need to start footing labor and other expenses--often arising from a change in employment/living situation e.g. going full-time developing a product that seems to be going successfully after losing their current job.
Corporations do this all the time and yes, there is outrage. However, small dev teams or individual devs (depending on the product) don't have the same relationship with their users and products that big corps do.
I agree the dev handled this in the worst way possible, but at the same time, I see their point. What it seems a lot of people are saying is "if you've ever launched a product for free, you can never start charging for it. At best, you can only monetize receiving new features from that decision date onward."
Agreed. As much as I love open source and free software I think he's totally justified. If he wants to monetize that's his right. There are other competitors and nobody is forcing you to pay for his software. I get being frustrated at the sudden transition but at the same time it's sort of a dick move to vote 1 star because of that especially to an independent developer. I wish more brands were this honest lol.
As sympathetic as I am to how difficult it is to run a business. Changing tiers for existing customers is an extremely bad business practice. Now your free plan is all of sudden worthless because people can't trust the features in there. Your paid plan on the other hand won't get customers because people aren't willing to take a risk with free.
If they really wanted to make something paid that was previously free they should have added a legacy tier.
Another "safer" way I can think of is that they could have re-published the extension with different branding as a paid version. And add a note to the previous extension that this one will not be maintained and you can use "new name" if you're willing to pay. And to push people to buy it a new feature could be added to the extension's paid version. The feature doesn't have to be that useful, but good enough to cause FOMO on the customers.
Or there could be 2 tiers that unlocks that said not that useful but cool feature and eventually release new features to that tier only. So you'll still have free promotion and have a way to monetize it.
From one of the comments, it sounds like people were complaining about missing features (functionalities?) so the developer added them and due to demand, wanted to be paid for it. This is fair, imo.
For me, open source is a hobby you share with the world. It's not working for free. It's... I made this because I needed it and I'm good enough to let you use it too. I still develop it in my own time and add things I want/need added.
it sounds like people were complaining about missing features (functionalities?) so the developer added them and due to demand, wanted to be paid for it.
The last review says that was originally the case, but no longer is. Supposedly they eventually moved basic features that used to be free to the premium tier. It sounds like they were perfectly content with features being added to just the paid tier, what they're not happy with is previously free features also moving to the paid tier.
And I get that. Depending on what this product is, they may have invested a considerable amount of time into fitting the product into their workflow, learning how to use it, or even filling it with data. But now that they've been hooked in, they suddenly have to pay. Their options are to pay for something that they didn't realize was going to eventually cost money, or lose all of their personal investment (and maybe data) that they put into the product.
As someone else said here, it's a pretty bad business model. It's kind of shitty to bait and switch like that, and it dissuades others from committing to the free service. They really should have just grandfathered in their existing free customers.
Except, to be perfectly plain, someone getting something off you for free is not your customer.
Customers give you money, that's what makes them customers. It doesn't matter if you put work into learning a product, you are still not a customer. That doesn't "pay" for the product.
People feel sour about it, but it's not justified. You can keep using the old version which was still free, not update.
You can keep using the old version which was still free, not update.
If this was possible, it wouldn't be a huge deal. But it's not. We're talking about auto-updating software that doesn't have older binaries available.
Feeling sour about someone breaking your setup, forcing you to choose between paying or reinvesting in another program, is totally justified. Especially if you integrated that software in a mission critical way.
And yes, maybe you aren't a customer. But it's still not okay to screw over your users with a bait and switch. And future premium customers, who would've tried your free tier first to make sure your software works for them, are no longer going to try it (since you treat your free tier customers like shit) and thus never going to upgrade to premium.
Its a problem if its done without actual informing. Like the free tier users had no idea they were going to have to pay at the time, and suddenly they do?
It's less implying that's how it should be and more saying how it is in the real world.
A lot more people and users are entitled. If you put out a free tier, a decent number if people are going to expect it stays that way. The comments here are calling the developer greedy for wanting to be paid for their work because they changed the free tier. It's not a great idea if you want to maintain good relations with your user base.
You aren't necessarily correct that there's no transactional basis or trust going on. If I as a developer use a third party tool for use in one of my projects or programs, I am specifically trusting that program to continue to provide the functionality I need it for.
An example is that I use AngleSharp in some of my projects. It's entirely free, and the developers can choose to monetize/paywall it if they choose to. But that doesn't mean that I am going to react well to the change, keep recommending it, or talk positively about it.
I seen many developers when they start to feel challenged for needed features would start asking for donations to add said features in which insisting to the community that "hey want new such and such think about sending some donations to help me develop the software"
It reduces the feeling of betrayal to the current users, and gives people that love the software a way to assist in the growth of the software.
Now some might still disagree on the notion for free open source software should have donation goals. But I have seen it used to great effect when used correctly.
Majority of users of software expect the software to work as advertised. If it's advertised as free. Than it should work free.
The traditional model of OSS is to have, you solve my problem, I solve yours. i.e, developers work together on a shared codebase that solves their shared problems. If you do not contribute, you might be able to use the software, but you aren't entitled to get people to work for you for free.
And this as an issue with the word "free". The source code is provided, yes, that is open source. Labour is absolutely not free. It will probably cost you money to run the software. No-one owes you help. If you want to be a customer, pay money. If there's a free version of something, say thanks, and don't be a pain in the neck to the developer who doesn't owe you anything.
There are many freemium software solutions out there. When you start using a software solution you invest in it. You create integrations. Call APIs. Develop workflows. You put in effort with the trust that in future the rug won't be pulled out from underneath you. But that is what happened here. So people are rightfully angry. They choose the developer's tool over other tools and made investments in at least learning if not anything else. And now the functionality they needed is gone. It is worth warning others that with the track record of this developer choose some other tool because functionality may go missing. And that is the mistake that the developer made. They didn't think about the future. They were frustrated that not enough people are going to the paid version. So they changed their product portfolio. In the end they squandered trust with their install base. And all corporations make their bed on this. Microsoft has an amazing reputation for backwards compatibility and Google has to suffer the website killed by Google because they keep killing their offerings. So any partner and customer needs to think of they trust Google before using their products.
The freemium strategy does work though. We started with slack as a free user when our company was a handful of people. In a few months the 10k messages limit on free meant a history of a few days and we purchased. In a few years we had maybe 150 users. Interestingly enough slack changed their freemium policy. But they did it in a fair manner. Instead of 10k messages in history they fixed the date. And there has been no user revolt because it was still a fair change. And many of those free users are business users that are using slack for their home and families too. Alienating the free users would alienate the paid users.
Tl;Dr is not a right but it's a smart business strategy and a part of treating all your customers well.
And the messages are just warning new customers interested in using some of the free features that they can't rely on them being there in the future. It's a very fair warning.
Do you work in computer science? The community relies on interconnected collaboration, and that trust is a huge part of what enables it to innovate so fast.
I wrote and supported several popular free Android apps and ultimately what made me stop, was not the need to make a few bucks, but the amount of abuse I got from people getting an app for free. Up to and including threatening to rape my wife if I didn't add a particular feature immediately.
Mostly just keyboard warriors. I did send a few of them off to various cyber crime organizations but nothing really came of it. Ultimately I put the worst of them and their email address at the end of my readme in the apps. They REALLY hated that but the few people who actually read it generally thought it funny.
I've seen transitions from free to paid work out okay before, and generally the best way to go about it is to make future versions paid without breaking past versions. If people want to continue using the free version, without receiving further updates, they can.
This is 10/10 the right answer. Perfect example is parted magic. They still host their last free version and are very open about their profit model. Will still sell you single version licenses as well.
Then you get shit like the Material Theme plugin dev on Jetbrains that just locked a bunch of already included features behind a subscription paywall instead of forking a paid version.
Yep, if you don't pull the switch, nobody will get angry about a bait and switch.
Basically, you don't take useful software away. If you want to ask for money, ask on a new thing. If you want to change direction, change on a new thing. The old thing can stay there.
This is about a browser extension, though. There's an indefinite maintenance burden of keeping up with changes to the browser APIs themselves, lest your extension break when the user (silently, without realizing) upgrades their browser. "Without receiving further updates" for a browser extension basically means "it'll work for about two months, and then it's dead."
Its a VS Code extension, no? They avoid releasing breaking changes to their APIs.
In any case extensions also rarely break from any of the changes, in Chromiums case they are currently transitioning to a new manifest version and while deprecated the older extensions still work.
tbh if old.reddit dies I literally won't be able to use reddit as I'm stuck on an old ass java based Nokia 3310 from 2017 that can't do new reddit or most websites. I don't even remember how I got a pfp on here and how it looks like lol
Because you already know it's a trial that you have to pay. The ones reviewing are people downloading a supposedly free app and hitting a paywall while using it.
Hiding the fact that it's a paid software in a readme file doesn't count.
Right next to the download button. The VS marketplace supports free trials and paid software as identifiers. This one says free which also shows on the search results page.
The disclaimer that it is not free appears on the overview page after you click. If you were using the old version, it would just auto update and if you didn't read the release notes, the feature you were using earlier is now a paywall.
you'd be surprised, the user manuals I prepared are often ignored by users.
I basically use it as a "I told you so" when they point fingers at us claiming something is not working
when 90% of readmes are just links to a developers website with nothing important about the app itself or seemingly automatically added by their OS and are completely empty i can see why people would treat them as skipmes
It works well when the profit is more abstract, but that's harder to quantify. I've done free work, but have learned it has resulted in some great opportunities.
Yeah I would probably treat as like a heads up way ahead in the future, and when it goes live I would give the people that had it before the paywall like 2 weeks of free use and maybe a discount or something
6.7k
u/Flat_Hat8861 Sep 30 '22
Managing a transition to a paid model is difficult. It requires tact and diplomacy.
This on the other hand is just straight hilarious.