3 ms·

Only just the word "Premium" in the title confirms my (totally unfounded because I didn't read much about nor try it) scepticism towards Telegram. I have an au

by ephbit 4y ago

Only just the word "Premium" in the title confirms my (totally unfounded because I didn't read much about nor try it) scepticism towards Telegram. I have an automatic aversion against the principle of two class services where the provider can over time tighten the screws and urge more people towards their premium offer. I'd prefer a service that just has one package an everyone pays the same. It's more transparent and cannot as easily be misused in obscure ways to game more profit out of its customers.

brink 4y ago
Running servers and developing apps isn't free. I'd rather they sell their premium service to some users than sell data.
- ephbit 4y ago
  I should have made more clear that I'm absolutely pro paying for the service. So much so that it makes me suspicious that Telegram has been free so long. I don't use gmail, I paid for my IM app, ... and I sure try to avoid services that pay for themselves by selling my data. I just see the distinction between normal and premium as some lever they can push more in the future to generate more revenue. Let's just wait and see how it'll work out.
kaba0 4y ago
It has been running completely free for users for years on end, and the only thing changing now is some minor convenience features in exchange for a subscription. For regular users basically everything will remain the same.
pph 4y ago
The issue I see with that is that messengers (platforms) have a strong network effect - it becomes useful to you if you can reach your contacts there. Making it paid creates an inconvenience even if the price extremely low, if you don't even know if your friends are on there (= if it's useful to you) even more so. If your target group is worldwide you need regional pricing (and payment methods) to not exclude economically disadvantaged regions. And even then it might have selective effects towards people who can afford the service more easily. For a case study of a paid messenger see Threema, though it is probably difficult to measure the impact of its payment model on its success.
- ephbit 4y ago
  > Making it paid creates an inconvenience even if the price extremely low, ... Buying ... isn't it always "inconvenient"? Shopping for groceries, what an inconvenience. I get your point: not having to do something to get something is always easier. But when you're literally paying for soooo many other things every day .. where's the proportionality? When in this case of instant messaging app you'd have to buy it once. > If your target group is worldwide you need regional pricing (and payment methods) to not exclude economically disadvantaged regions. Yes, valid. Like with most other services/products all over the world, of course the messaging app as well would be priced according to the usual standards in the respective country. Food prices and all other prices vary from region to region, country to country. So I didn't mean it should be priced the same in every country. Just that there better not be two different service levels. As I wrote, IMO this differentiation just enables gamification/maximisation of revenue. > For a case study of a paid messenger see Threema, ... Yes, Threema appears to move rather slowly. Of course they are, when all other apps offer even more shiny features and are free. That's just how most people decide: nice features, friends are there, free .. yep, I'll go with that. My impression is that Threema is doing ok, considering the fact that it costs a few bucks.

by ephbit 4y ago

brink 4y ago

Running servers and developing apps isn't free. I'd rather they sell their premium service to some users than sell data.

ephbit 4y ago
I should have made more clear that I'm absolutely pro paying for the service. So much so that it makes me suspicious that Telegram has been free so long. I don't use gmail, I paid for my IM app, ... and I sure try to avoid services that pay for themselves by selling my data. I just see the distinction between normal and premium as some lever they can push more in the future to generate more revenue. Let's just wait and see how it'll work out.

kaba0 4y ago

It has been running completely free for users for years on end, and the only thing changing now is some minor convenience features in exchange for a subscription. For regular users basically everything will remain the same.

pph 4y ago

The issue I see with that is that messengers (platforms) have a strong network effect - it becomes useful to you if you can reach your contacts there. Making it paid creates an inconvenience even if the price extremely low, if you don't even know if your friends are on there (= if it's useful to you) even more so. If your target group is worldwide you need regional pricing (and payment methods) to not exclude economically disadvantaged regions. And even then it might have selective effects towards people who can afford the service more easily. For a case study of a paid messenger see Threema, though it is probably difficult to measure the impact of its payment model on its success.

ephbit 4y ago
> Making it paid creates an inconvenience even if the price extremely low, ... Buying ... isn't it always "inconvenient"? Shopping for groceries, what an inconvenience. I get your point: not having to do something to get something is always easier. But when you're literally paying for soooo many other things every day .. where's the proportionality? When in this case of instant messaging app you'd have to buy it once. > If your target group is worldwide you need regional pricing (and payment methods) to not exclude economically disadvantaged regions. Yes, valid. Like with most other services/products all over the world, of course the messaging app as well would be priced according to the usual standards in the respective country. Food prices and all other prices vary from region to region, country to country. So I didn't mean it should be priced the same in every country. Just that there better not be two different service levels. As I wrote, IMO this differentiation just enables gamification/maximisation of revenue. > For a case study of a paid messenger see Threema, ... Yes, Threema appears to move rather slowly. Of course they are, when all other apps offer even more shiny features and are free. That's just how most people decide: nice features, friends are there, free .. yep, I'll go with that. My impression is that Threema is doing ok, considering the fact that it costs a few bucks.