> Most (all?) of their current apps would probably need to disappear. If the very product they're trying to sell needs to disappear, then your recommendations

> Most (all?) of their current apps would probably need to disappear. If the very product they're trying to sell needs to disappear, then your recommendations of "consolidate into worker co-op" or "create a larger company" does not have any useful meaning. You've got cause-&-effect of product and business structure backwards. What happens in the real world: 1st) have a viable product that sells for sustainable revenue ---> 2nd) amount of incoming money helps guide decisions about structuring the company to be sole-proprietor vs traditional incorporated vs workers cooperative. The reverse direction of... 1st) organize a workers co-op ---> 2nd) sell something-I-don't-know-what-it-could-be-but-your-current-apps-need-to-disappear. ... is an academic dead end. If you're going to hand wave away where the money comes from to pay the salaries of the workers owning the co-op, it doesn't matter that they formed a co-op for better working conditions. The article was about sustainable revenue in the long tail of the app store. A workers co-op is an unrelated tangent and doesn't solve how to survive in that long tail.