This is not to take anything away from the level of pettiness from Cerberus in the way they're handling it but there’s a couple of ways that this happens with c

This is not to take anything away from the level of pettiness from Cerberus in the way they're handling it but there’s a couple of ways that this happens with companies: 1. Severe miscalculation where the costs of lifetime users become significant. This speaks to a business problem, that you have dedicated users but only at a skewed low cost. 2. It becomes a political thing that new leaders can use to “make a statement”. This happens when a lifetime tier doesn’t really cost anything at the end of the day, but killing it sends internal messages about thriftiness or just general statements that it’s a new day. 3. Preceding a downsizing of a business that has fixed costs, like x number of human beings need to support y number of users. Chasing away users to reduce y so you can reduce x as well, and getting the lower paid users out is where you want to bleed userbase. All of that said — these are all functions of poorly conceived lifetime plans. Lifetime plans where the rest of your model is based on monthly recurring revenue should be treated for what they are, which is marketing. Don’t run them for long periods of time, cap them at a reasonable number of users for the spend, etc. And then if you screw that up, whatever you do as a correction, don’t blame the users and be very upfront.