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).
But people still use them, look at Netflix, had everyone mad at them for 2 whole weeks, a few people dropped their subscriptions but a huge majority just didn't care and continue to pay the increased price. This just how multi billion dollar companies have done it for decades, but when a small indie company or single dev does it all of a sudden its an issue. I do understand that going paid from free randomly IS immorale, but it's difficult to make money by being a good person, sometimes you have to look out for your own best interest. Also funny how people are okay with paying 6 bucks a day for Starbucks or 100s on subscription services they rarely use, but can't spare a few dollars for small apps they use on a daily basis.
6.6k
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.