4 ms·

> EDIT 2: Is spez (Steve Huffman, CEO and cofounder) going to lose his job over this? Why would he lose his job? Realistically, it's a smart business move to m

> EDIT 2: Is spez (Steve Huffman, CEO and cofounder) going to lose his job over this? Why would he lose his job? Realistically, it's a smart business move to monetise their users. It's Reddit, them being pissy about having to pay is part of the course. There is a reason they're the lowest valued social media users. >EDIT 3: Christian says in the post the refunds will cost him personally about $250,000. Does he have a claim against Reddit for that money I wonder? I'm sure lawyers are looking closely at the agreements right now. What would he have a claim for? He wasn't paying for the API. He could pay for the API and continue to operate. You can't sue someone because they stopped letting you use their services for free. You sure can't sue a business for asking your for-profit company to pay expenses. Realistically, these app users would have made tens if not hundreds of thousands a month if they just added subscription model to their app and only had paying customers. These apps could still exist and be extremely profitable for a one-man apps. Simple maths $5 a month subscription $2.50 to reddit $1.50 to apple and $1 to the app developer. Say 10% of their users convert which seems very reasonable considering the reception a price increase to $6.99 seem to get on the Apollo subreddit. That would have been $100,000 a month profit. But instead, they shut it down.

sebzim4500 3y ago
I mean, Tortious interference can apply when a service which could reasonably have been expected to charge reasonable amounts suddenly increases their prices for no reason, if it prevents a third party from being able to fulfill a contract. I have no idea if one of this is one of those cases though, I wouldn't expect so but IANAL.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago
  Reddit lawyers would show other social networks such as Twitter and Imgur offical pricing charging more. That would make it a reasonable amount. And there is a reason, they're unprofitable. It really annoys me that people say the price is unreasonable when it's so low that a $5 a month subscription covers it and makes profit.

sebzim4500 3y ago

I mean, Tortious interference can apply when a service which could reasonably have been expected to charge reasonable amounts suddenly increases their prices for no reason, if it prevents a third party from being able to fulfill a contract. I have no idea if one of this is one of those cases though, I wouldn't expect so but IANAL.

that_guy_iain 3y ago
Reddit lawyers would show other social networks such as Twitter and Imgur offical pricing charging more. That would make it a reasonable amount. And there is a reason, they're unprofitable. It really annoys me that people say the price is unreasonable when it's so low that a $5 a month subscription covers it and makes profit.