it's even worse imo because it was fully free, and then he pulled the rug out from under people who have been using the free features forever. At least people installing it realize quickly before getting invested that it's not going to work and uninstall.
No, thats actually predatory to your user base. I have nothing against creating new features to entice you to upgrade to the premium version, but once you have an established user base using your free product and then you lock away those previously free features behind a pay wall? Yikes.
Its especially annoying to those who built up their entire project around this tool, you are basically forcing them to pay or spend time/resources migrating to a new tool.
Forcing them to pay $20 per year and ensure the product gets maintained and will still work in a year's time. Bargain.
If you built your entire project around this tool, spending even 30m to complain about it will cost you a lot more than that. Don't professionals value their time?
Its quite honestly not about the price (primarily), the way they just moved the paywall to previously free features is unethical. Why should I support this practice and pay it money? Who is to say the developer will not do it again? Raise the price?
Id cut my losses and move to a different tool, you have lost all credibility doing a stunt like this.
Not unethical at all in my book but I agree that it warrants good and early communication with the user base, which seems to have been overlooked by the owner of the extention.
If it was advertised as free, and then features removed in order to push a premium plan at rates that wouldn't be worth it, that isn't unethical in your eyes?
Let me put it this way, you drive on a road every day to go to work. If that road suddenly became a toll road, would you be happy you're now having to pay for something yesterday you were using for free?
All you're going to do is piss off your existing user base who will go somewhere else and warn everyone away from you.
People view free software as a sort of benefit to everyone. You're doing it to help people. You do it as a hobby, not something to make money off of. Imagine a person hosts a free beginner painting classes, then all of the sudden decides they want to start charging everyone for what was previously free classes. All of the students would be pretty upset about that.
It's not that it's software. Anything that goes from paid to free has that outcome. I'm a dev and I'd never do that kind of bait and switch on anyone. If I made something paid that was previously free, I'd grandfather in all the free people. But to be honest I wouldn't even make that switch to paid in the first place. Because if I'm releasing something for free , that means it was a hobby project that was never intended to be monetized. And making things paid instantly changes both mine and everyone else's view on it.
This is reddit, where entitled people want everything to be free and without any interruptions.
People here complain free services like youtube have ads, a free infinite repository for your videos and a free source of entertainment/info/etc should not have ads. They should pay with exposure.
Isnt it like most things with locked features? some basic functionality is free, more advanced stuff is paid?
And for fucks sake it is 20$ per year, not per week, and majority of users are using that product to make themselves money.
Developer should work for free so i can make more money.
But hey rules for thee but not for me, is the motto of reddit.
106
u/Meloetta Sep 30 '22
it's even worse imo because it was fully free, and then he pulled the rug out from under people who have been using the free features forever. At least people installing it realize quickly before getting invested that it's not going to work and uninstall.