3 ms·

How does it not "poison the mission" if it means 99% of users drop the platform?

by dmurray 2y ago

MrDresden 2y ago
Does that even matter if the mission is dead?
- paxcoder 2y ago
  It matters for integrity. They promised 100% free forever. But anyway, death and betrayal aren't necessarily the only options. As others have suggested, they can try soliciting donations more forcefully. If that doesn't work, they could introduce premium features. Stuff that obviously has to cost money would make the pill easier to swallow, for example, features that depends on third party services (only LLMs come to mind right now), or human assistance (real-life instructors). Admittedly, this would be a compromise. One could argue it fails on the 100% part, but another could argue that 100% of existing features remain free.
Barrin92 2y ago
that's one percent more success at the mission than you have if you're forced to turn the servers off because you can't pay the bills. Money's to an organization what's oxygen is to a body, before you go and plan any missions you need to be able to sustain yourself.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Fair point. I used 1% at the very low end -- if the amount is small enough (in the $1/month range) I think the opt-in rate would be much higher. I would then give a free account to anyone who asks. ("We know that even $1/month is a big ask for some folks in certain countries or they may even have a method by which to pay it. If that's you, let us know and apply for a free account here.") Then basically auto-approve (with some bot-screening mechanism) accounts that apply. Sure you'll get some abuse and people lying, but not that many people are going to lie just to save $1/month.
jessriedel 2y ago
Another alternative is charging $10/month, but allowing students or anyone to request a waiving of fees. They just need to take a minimal speed-bump action to request it, e.g., sending an email once per year. Anyone who isn't willing to do this probably isn't getting much value anyway, and a non-trivial fraction of people (more than 1%) would plausibly pay $10/year just to avoid the speed bump or to support the mission.

How does it not "poison the mission" if it means 99% of users drop the platform?

MrDresden 2y ago

Does that even matter if the mission is dead?

paxcoder 2y ago
It matters for integrity. They promised 100% free forever. But anyway, death and betrayal aren't necessarily the only options. As others have suggested, they can try soliciting donations more forcefully. If that doesn't work, they could introduce premium features. Stuff that obviously has to cost money would make the pill easier to swallow, for example, features that depends on third party services (only LLMs come to mind right now), or human assistance (real-life instructors). Admittedly, this would be a compromise. One could argue it fails on the 100% part, but another could argue that 100% of existing features remain free.

Barrin92 2y ago

that's one percent more success at the mission than you have if you're forced to turn the servers off because you can't pay the bills. Money's to an organization what's oxygen is to a body, before you go and plan any missions you need to be able to sustain yourself.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Fair point. I used 1% at the very low end -- if the amount is small enough (in the $1/month range) I think the opt-in rate would be much higher. I would then give a free account to anyone who asks. ("We know that even $1/month is a big ask for some folks in certain countries or they may even have a method by which to pay it. If that's you, let us know and apply for a free account here.") Then basically auto-approve (with some bot-screening mechanism) accounts that apply. Sure you'll get some abuse and people lying, but not that many people are going to lie just to save $1/month.

jessriedel 2y ago

Another alternative is charging $10/month, but allowing students or anyone to request a waiving of fees. They just need to take a minimal speed-bump action to request it, e.g., sending an email once per year. Anyone who isn't willing to do this probably isn't getting much value anyway, and a non-trivial fraction of people (more than 1%) would plausibly pay $10/year just to avoid the speed bump or to support the mission.