3 ms·

I know this may be a minority opinion among developers, but I'm ok with them trying to make money. And if the optimal way to do that is to ask 35% of the way th

I know this may be a minority opinion among developers, but I'm ok with them trying to make money. And if the optimal way to do that is to ask 35% of the way through, then that's what they should do. I don't view that as a dark practice or bait and switch. I don't think there is an obligation to be super clear that there is a paid version. It's something the owner should test, and see if it puts people off or if it converts better. Maybe it puts off 10% more people, but 30% more convert? Good on them for finding that out and optimizing accordingly. We in the dev world expect way too much for free. Not that I complain when I find something for free, but people deserve to be compensated for their work also.

qntty 8y ago
Sounds like publicfig is saying that it's not optimal for them.
publicfig 8y ago
I never argued the effectiveness of misleading business practices towards generating revenue or conversions. I feel that design can be misleading and user-antagonistic while still being the most effective solution for monetization. It is up to the creator/organization to make that decision, and that decision can be both financially effective and amoral/"scummy" at the same time. I cannot make that decision for the creator/organization, but I also feel no need to default to defending user-antagonistic practices just because "they work".