5 ms·
Yes. I may be in minority, but yes. Understanding that "Free" is the only way to grow a platform, once there, I'd happily pay $X/month for Facebook, Twitter,
by NikolaNovak 5y ago
Yes.
I may be in minority, but yes.
Understanding that "Free" is the only way to grow a platform, once there, I'd happily pay $X/month for Facebook, Twitter, etc that's customizable to the format and amount of tracking that I want.
That is completely unrealistic, of course, but that wasn't your question, so I can happily and honestly answer "Yes" :)
- amatecha 5y agothere used to be such a service, App.net[0], which was basically "paid twitter". It was pretty awesome. Not only was there the App.net client which was an analogue to Twitter, devs could make other services which you could log into with your App.net identity, for example there was an excellent Instagram-like app "Favd"[1] that could post to Twitter, FB and App.net. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20130116194906/https://app.net/about/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130116194906/https://app.net/a... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140922104251/http://pic.favd.net/ https://web.archive.org/web/20140922104251/http://pic.favd.n...
- zeepzeep 5y ago> I may be in minority, but yes. Do you know what's the best thing about that? It's okay if only a part of the population pays for each service. If enough people have Twitter Blue to make Twitter profitable, and are enjoying the comments and type of content the tons of non-paying users are making, it's win-win. One person hast Twitter Blue, another one has Facebook Deluxe, and some others don't pay for online services at all. But these who don't pay are creating content people are willing to pay for. That's how free to play games work, so it's not unrealistic.
- NikolaNovak 5y agoExactly; I'm happy to be a "Whale" on a number of games and services :)