4 ms·

I'm going to have to give this one a huge thumbs down. Injecting ads into a free and open source webapp that previously did not have any just to get people to b

I'm going to have to give this one a huge thumbs down. Injecting ads into a free and open source webapp that previously did not have any just to get people to buy your ad free version is the kind of thing Lemmy is trying to get away from. This is quite unacceptable in my opinion. If the developer removes the ad-ridden version and only makes a single purchase paid version then it would be acceptable as you would be buying the software rather than paying them to escape the ads that they themselves added. As it stands the developer of Sync is basically profiting off of the free content of others by injecting ads next to all of their posts and comments.

danielbln 3y ago
What are you on about? Sync is a native app that uses the Lemmy API, not some webapp wrapper. And the original version also features ads unless you bought the pro version.
- izzydata 3y ago
  No other Lemmy UI whether it be a webapp or mobile app has ads. This is exclusive to Sync.
gremlinsinc 3y ago
so you're saying app developers should create apps for free, out of the goodness of their heart while they live in a van because they work for free?
- izzydata 3y ago
  I didn't say any such thing. I said they should sell the software rather than put in ads and then get people to pay to remove them.
  - neurostimulant 3y ago
    I actually agree with you on this (having ads in a community full of supporters of open source and anti-capitalism is a bad idea), but I think the dev has already run the number and decides going with ad-supported model and $20 permanent ad-removal IAP is the only way to make enough profit to sustain full-time development given (currently) low number of lemmy users right now (100,000 active users is too small market to profitably sell $3 apps). I subscribed to sync ultra to support the dev, and hopefully if the dev is able to sustain himself from subscriptions, he might be more open to removing ads in the free version later.
d0gbread 3y ago
Curious how you would prefer this be resolved? Or are you just saying you would have made different decisions and it's fine that Sync is doing what Sync is doing?
- izzydata 3y ago
  Simple. You get rid of the free with ads version and then sell the software for whatever amount of money. Or if there has to be a free version it wouldn't have ads. It would just not have the pro features which you would have to pay for. Ads are not a necessary business model.
  - d0gbread 3y ago
    I understand that is an option, but the way you say he's profiting off free content made it sound like it should be someone's choice other than the developers to dictate how he should or shouldn't monetize. But given your response now I'm thinking you mean you just wouldn't pick it. The fact many people would, that Lemmy isn't affected one way or another, etc, makes it seem more like preference than morals or something. Just getting a lay of the land of the hate Sync is getting (on Lemmy, too). It comes across as "we don't profit [like that/at all] so you shouldn't either". But as someone that doesn't see it as unethical, I just see user choice, and in this one case a paid plan subsidized by users that don't mind the ads.
    - izzydata 3y ago
      Who said anything about not profiting? Of course people are free to choose to do bad things and there is nothing we can do to stop them. That doesn't mean they deserve praise or shouldn't be called out on it. It is shameful in my personal opinion which is why I am expressing it.
      - d0gbread 3y ago
        Hm, okay. I appreciate the dialog, just trying to understand the perspective and I think I do (still disagree, but that's okay). I thought maybe you'd go in the direction of laws or licenses being used to prohibit advertising in certain contexts, like downstream use of content, but what I'm hearing is that profiting off other's free content is fine, but in your opinion doing so with ads just isn't cool with you. That's reasonable, I just thought maybe your desired solution was more systemic. Ultimately he's trying to cover his own salary. Would be interesting to know what that salary is, and what the price point would have to be to eliminate the ad revenue completely. As it stands, many balked at a one time cost of $20.

danielbln 3y ago

What are you on about? Sync is a native app that uses the Lemmy API, not some webapp wrapper. And the original version also features ads unless you bought the pro version.

izzydata 3y ago
No other Lemmy UI whether it be a webapp or mobile app has ads. This is exclusive to Sync.

gremlinsinc 3y ago

so you're saying app developers should create apps for free, out of the goodness of their heart while they live in a van because they work for free?

izzydata 3y ago
I didn't say any such thing. I said they should sell the software rather than put in ads and then get people to pay to remove them.
- neurostimulant 3y ago
  I actually agree with you on this (having ads in a community full of supporters of open source and anti-capitalism is a bad idea), but I think the dev has already run the number and decides going with ad-supported model and $20 permanent ad-removal IAP is the only way to make enough profit to sustain full-time development given (currently) low number of lemmy users right now (100,000 active users is too small market to profitably sell $3 apps). I subscribed to sync ultra to support the dev, and hopefully if the dev is able to sustain himself from subscriptions, he might be more open to removing ads in the free version later.

d0gbread 3y ago

Curious how you would prefer this be resolved? Or are you just saying you would have made different decisions and it's fine that Sync is doing what Sync is doing?

izzydata 3y ago
Simple. You get rid of the free with ads version and then sell the software for whatever amount of money. Or if there has to be a free version it wouldn't have ads. It would just not have the pro features which you would have to pay for. Ads are not a necessary business model.
- d0gbread 3y ago
  I understand that is an option, but the way you say he's profiting off free content made it sound like it should be someone's choice other than the developers to dictate how he should or shouldn't monetize. But given your response now I'm thinking you mean you just wouldn't pick it. The fact many people would, that Lemmy isn't affected one way or another, etc, makes it seem more like preference than morals or something. Just getting a lay of the land of the hate Sync is getting (on Lemmy, too). It comes across as "we don't profit [like that/at all] so you shouldn't either". But as someone that doesn't see it as unethical, I just see user choice, and in this one case a paid plan subsidized by users that don't mind the ads.
  - izzydata 3y ago
    Who said anything about not profiting? Of course people are free to choose to do bad things and there is nothing we can do to stop them. That doesn't mean they deserve praise or shouldn't be called out on it. It is shameful in my personal opinion which is why I am expressing it.
    - d0gbread 3y ago
      Hm, okay. I appreciate the dialog, just trying to understand the perspective and I think I do (still disagree, but that's okay). I thought maybe you'd go in the direction of laws or licenses being used to prohibit advertising in certain contexts, like downstream use of content, but what I'm hearing is that profiting off other's free content is fine, but in your opinion doing so with ads just isn't cool with you. That's reasonable, I just thought maybe your desired solution was more systemic. Ultimately he's trying to cover his own salary. Would be interesting to know what that salary is, and what the price point would have to be to eliminate the ad revenue completely. As it stands, many balked at a one time cost of $20.