This is a noble idea and drives at questions on business ethics. Most businesses don't approach subscriptions this way. Some portion of revenue comes from peo

This is a noble idea and drives at questions on business ethics. Most businesses don't approach subscriptions this way. Some portion of revenue comes from people choosing a "set it and forget it" approach toward service subscriptions. Is it unearned revenue? The traditional take is the user has access to the premium product. If they don't use it, that's their problem. (i.e. a gym membership) I think traditional MBA thinking is to optimize around revenue at any cost. However, I think this sort of behavior has made people, (especially young people), not trust businesses from banks to wireless carriers. I think businesses that optimize around revenue rather a relationship with their users are likely to lose them as soon as there is an alternative. Clearly, it is in the best interests of the user to do this though, as a business you should also expect to drive more long term loyalty to the product. I think the entry could make an argument that this will cause users to be more loyal to you or create longer lasting subscriptions. Without data or even anecdotal feedback that users are more likely to stay because of this choice, it sounds like you are something of a White Knight turning away money. From a user perspective, I'm used to a use it or lose it subscription. So, if I am not charged, and then I all of a sudden am charged because I came back, I might get confused. Do you do customer education at the time of the subscription creation of this friendly charging policy? Do you notify the user by email when they are not being charged because of a lack of activity? (This might be a good way to actually get them back to the product, and possibly you have measurable data to support the value of this?)