5 ms·

Not sure I totally agree. Capitalizing on a competitors mistake is kind of slimy; calling out their poor business practices is not. Users will invest their tim

Not sure I totally agree. Capitalizing on a competitors mistake is kind of slimy; calling out their poor business practices is not. Users will invest their time and resources into using your product based on the promise that it’s free forever. Changing your mind later puts the burden on them to figure out how to move forward. Even if I was a free user and I was considering a paid plan that type of dishonesty would make me move to a competitor. What else will they change their mind on? No thanks.

jxf 3y ago
> Not sure I totally agree. Capitalizing on a competitors mistake is kind of slimy; calling out their poor business practices is not. Which part of what I wrote didn't you agree with?
- fsckboy 3y ago
  obviously I'm not GP because, what is wrong with capitalizing on a competitor's mistake? Isn't that the point of competition?
karaterobot 3y ago
> Capitalizing on a competitors mistake is kind of slimy; calling out their poor business practices is not. Agreed, except I can't find any examples of them calling out good business practices by their competitor, so I have to question whether it may be kind of slimy and disingenuous after all.
tough 3y ago
They should at least grandfathered any users on the -free forever- plan
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  Agreed. Does anyone have any insight as to why companies fail to do this? Naively as a non-{marketing,business development,COO} guy, I feel like the cost to keep delivering those services ought to pale in comparison to the value of having even a tiny number of those customers go into a forum like HN or Reddit and say "we've been there since the early days and we're really happy". Sure, it's inherently a tech/financial/support load to maintain a special category of customer, but I don't see it as fundamentally any different from a successful company managing the discontinuation of a popular product. You cut off new customers, let attrition take its course for the existing ones, and take your lumps from any high-value/high-touch customers who drag their feet on moving to the new thing. It's work, but so is climbing a ladder. Do you want to elevate the company or not?
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    > Does anyone have any insight as to why companies fail to do this? It’s really hard to quantify the positive benefit of letting them stay, and really easy to quantify that letting them stay is going to cost us $500/month forever.
    - xemdetia 3y ago
      Sometimes it's also abuse too depending on the product. If you have a product that can get twisted into a phishing mechanism or injecting crypto miners somehow that can be the worst for whack a mole. I still think in many cases this is solved by just discontinuing new free plans and dealing with the population you already had.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Turnover still applies to the “free” users. If the burden is simply so high the company is going to fail otherwise then do what you got to do, but don’t assume grandfathering people in means spending X$/month for the next hundred years or anything.
  - jxf 3y ago
    > let attrition take its course for the existing ones The reasoning breaks down here. There's not likely to be a lot of attrition for a free product compared to a paid one. It costs nothing to continue and costs time to cancel.
  - TimTheTinker 3y ago
    > Does anyone have any insight as to why companies fail to do this? Because their responsibility to do so hasn't (yet) been translated into legal liability. A lot would change if someone could successfully sue a company for not keeping one of these sorts of promises.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Or tell them it may stop being free in X years, where X is large enough that it’s aways off but close enough that some decide to switch. And then stop new signups but never actually take away the free plan. The “good work Wesley, I’ll probably charge you in the morning” plan.
  - pnt12 3y ago
    Or just "free hosting", no further details needed. Later they may say "this was unsustainable and we will drop this", and that would be OK.
  - gausswho 3y ago
    That Princess Bride reference evolved well. Top form!
bb88 3y ago
Yeah, not sure about this either. What it does do is to make me think about the free tier for apps I use, and then wondering what I will do if that free tier becomes more expensive than the value I get out of it. This reminds me of the love/hate relationship I have with the Fusion 360 free tier, and maybe even some paid tiers where lifetime is not really lifetime.
- z3t4 3y ago
  You set off the cost of moving elsewhere, like an insurance. Or you are smart and use commodity services.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>Users will invest their time and resources into using your product based on the promise that it’s free forever. Unless you're a naive new entrant into the real world who doesn't know better, it's on you if you're fooled into thinking something is "free forever". There is no such thing as a free lunch.
- orphea 3y ago
  You resort to victim blaming. Words should have meaning, you know? If there is no such thing as a free lunch, then you should not be allowed to offer free lunches.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    The saying goes that if you're fooled twice, you're the one to be shamed. The world isn't a nice place filled with unicorns and fairy dust, unfortunately.
- eredengrin 3y ago
  Totally agree. In fact for myself, if a company is offering a free service, especially one that has significant cost on their end (bandwidth, compute, and storage are common cases), it's somewhat of a red flag to me. Too many things in tech have been "free" only to discover years later the negative consequences either for their business (which is ultimately bad for me as a user) or for society as a whole (which is also bad for me as a member of society). I much prefer transparent and sustainable business models that aren't based on some handwavy explanation that the free users will somehow lead to a bunch of paid users and that's how they'll make money Soon.
trinsic2 3y ago
Yeah, I disagree. It dosnt seem right to capitalize on another's mistakes by calling them out on it, and then offering a competing plan.

jxf 3y ago

> Not sure I totally agree. Capitalizing on a competitors mistake is kind of slimy; calling out their poor business practices is not. Which part of what I wrote didn't you agree with?

fsckboy 3y ago
obviously I'm not GP because, what is wrong with capitalizing on a competitor's mistake? Isn't that the point of competition?

karaterobot 3y ago

> Capitalizing on a competitors mistake is kind of slimy; calling out their poor business practices is not. Agreed, except I can't find any examples of them calling out good business practices by their competitor, so I have to question whether it may be kind of slimy and disingenuous after all.

tough 3y ago

They should at least grandfathered any users on the -free forever- plan

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
Agreed. Does anyone have any insight as to why companies fail to do this? Naively as a non-{marketing,business development,COO} guy, I feel like the cost to keep delivering those services ought to pale in comparison to the value of having even a tiny number of those customers go into a forum like HN or Reddit and say "we've been there since the early days and we're really happy". Sure, it's inherently a tech/financial/support load to maintain a special category of customer, but I don't see it as fundamentally any different from a successful company managing the discontinuation of a popular product. You cut off new customers, let attrition take its course for the existing ones, and take your lumps from any high-value/high-touch customers who drag their feet on moving to the new thing. It's work, but so is climbing a ladder. Do you want to elevate the company or not?
- Aeolun 3y ago
  > Does anyone have any insight as to why companies fail to do this? It’s really hard to quantify the positive benefit of letting them stay, and really easy to quantify that letting them stay is going to cost us $500/month forever.
  - xemdetia 3y ago
    Sometimes it's also abuse too depending on the product. If you have a product that can get twisted into a phishing mechanism or injecting crypto miners somehow that can be the worst for whack a mole. I still think in many cases this is solved by just discontinuing new free plans and dealing with the population you already had.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Turnover still applies to the “free” users. If the burden is simply so high the company is going to fail otherwise then do what you got to do, but don’t assume grandfathering people in means spending X$/month for the next hundred years or anything.
- jxf 3y ago
  > let attrition take its course for the existing ones The reasoning breaks down here. There's not likely to be a lot of attrition for a free product compared to a paid one. It costs nothing to continue and costs time to cancel.
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  > Does anyone have any insight as to why companies fail to do this? Because their responsibility to do so hasn't (yet) been translated into legal liability. A lot would change if someone could successfully sue a company for not keeping one of these sorts of promises.
bombcar 3y ago
Or tell them it may stop being free in X years, where X is large enough that it’s aways off but close enough that some decide to switch. And then stop new signups but never actually take away the free plan. The “good work Wesley, I’ll probably charge you in the morning” plan.
- pnt12 3y ago
  Or just "free hosting", no further details needed. Later they may say "this was unsustainable and we will drop this", and that would be OK.
- gausswho 3y ago
  That Princess Bride reference evolved well. Top form!

bb88 3y ago

Yeah, not sure about this either. What it does do is to make me think about the free tier for apps I use, and then wondering what I will do if that free tier becomes more expensive than the value I get out of it. This reminds me of the love/hate relationship I have with the Fusion 360 free tier, and maybe even some paid tiers where lifetime is not really lifetime.

z3t4 3y ago
You set off the cost of moving elsewhere, like an insurance. Or you are smart and use commodity services.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>Users will invest their time and resources into using your product based on the promise that it’s free forever. Unless you're a naive new entrant into the real world who doesn't know better, it's on you if you're fooled into thinking something is "free forever". There is no such thing as a free lunch.

orphea 3y ago
You resort to victim blaming. Words should have meaning, you know? If there is no such thing as a free lunch, then you should not be allowed to offer free lunches.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  The saying goes that if you're fooled twice, you're the one to be shamed. The world isn't a nice place filled with unicorns and fairy dust, unfortunately.
eredengrin 3y ago
Totally agree. In fact for myself, if a company is offering a free service, especially one that has significant cost on their end (bandwidth, compute, and storage are common cases), it's somewhat of a red flag to me. Too many things in tech have been "free" only to discover years later the negative consequences either for their business (which is ultimately bad for me as a user) or for society as a whole (which is also bad for me as a member of society). I much prefer transparent and sustainable business models that aren't based on some handwavy explanation that the free users will somehow lead to a bunch of paid users and that's how they'll make money Soon.

trinsic2 3y ago

Yeah, I disagree. It dosnt seem right to capitalize on another's mistakes by calling them out on it, and then offering a competing plan.