Well now that Textra is charging I'm going back stock/Hangouts
- Thread starter Kalvin Kerns
- Start date
smooth4lyfe
Trusted Member
- Sep 16, 2012
- 5,534
- 0
- 0
- Feb 14, 2014
- 1,586
- 0
- 0
I paid with free credit from doing the survey thing so I'm cool now, but I wasn't going to pay for this bait and switch using my own money.
Posted via the Android Central App
Posted via the Android Central App
- Apr 17, 2012
- 32,273
- 23
- 38
It wasn't a bait and switch .. you still got the product .. you still were able to use everything. Wrong term here
.
- Feb 14, 2014
- 1,586
- 0
- 0
It wasn't a bait and switch .. you still got the product .. you still were able to use everything. Wrong term here
Well I guess it's semantics or personal perspective. I consider it a bait and switch because they baited me to use a free service then switched that service and in order to get it back the way it was (no ads) wanted money. It's just a bad business practice imo.
Posted via the Android Central App
- Apr 17, 2012
- 32,273
- 23
- 38
So if we went by that ... no free app you use can go to a paid version so the dev can be paid for the time & effort they put into an app? What would they have to do to not have you feel this way?
- Feb 14, 2014
- 1,586
- 0
- 0
They should have charged from day one so people knew exactly what they were getting into.
Posted via the Android Central App
- Apr 17, 2012
- 32,273
- 23
- 38
But they didn't .. It may have just become too time consuming to invest tons of free time into nothing in return.
I guess some people refuse to see the difference. The dev can charge ANYTHING they want. Some will buy, others will not. They can offer a free, ad-supported experience if they want. Again, some will like, others not. They don't HAVE to keep it updated if they feel like it's not worth their time. What they chose to do was to offer an app and promote it as a free, no ad app. Then AFTER it exists, and AFTER people are using it, deciding that they should have been charging for it all along. So they put previously free features behind a paywall. Again, they can do that. It's not _immoral_ or something like that.
But it's a business practice I dislike and can never support as a customer. If you don't mind being charged extra now and then because someone else wants your money, then great! The dev has found their customer. Go support them. But to pretend like there is no relevant difference between taking away free features vs offering a paid app - you just don't get it.
What about the next time, though? You gave the developer your $1, right? Do you feel like that entitles you to an ad-free experience forever? Does it entitle you to all the relevant future updates? What EXACTLY did you purchase? I think it's clear that you purchased the right not to be nagged by ads For now. As soon as the dev decides he needs more cash, I wouldn't expect you to keep the features you paid for without paying more. If you don't mind that TYPE of relationship as a consumer, then fine.
I desire something better. I have a feeling that most people, given the option, would too.
But the BROWSER isn't displaying ads. The sites are. Would you continue to use Chrome if it also displayed ads around the sites? Wouldn't you find something else that didn't make your user experience worse in exchange for $$$?
EDIT: Sorry, this next part is in response to Almeuit. I think I pushed the wrong button.
EDIT2: Whoops! Double post there. I win the n00b award for forum skill today.
- Apr 17, 2012
- 32,273
- 23
- 38
No I simply don't mind paying a dev $1 for a good app. I like having apps that are updated and worked on .. if a dollar buys me that. I am all for it.
As you said they don't have to update if it isn't worth their time .. but then people would be mad the app is dead. So they decided to charge to remove ads or you live with ads. Also I am sure it will last for a long time .. I paid for ChompSMS years ago and still have no ads
.Ok, let me make sure I understand your position. As far as you are concerned these situations are not relevantly different:
1. App is advertised as an ad-supported app with an ad-free paid version.
2. App is advertised as a free non-ad-supported app but then switches to ad-support with an in-app purchase to remove ads.
It seems to me that your second paragraph is making my point for me. You're ok with a dev raising the price on something you already have. You hope that they won't do it often, but you're fine with it.
I'm not fine with it. The only way you can defend the idea that I should be fine with it is if scenario 1 and scenario 2 above are equivalent. It's fairly obvious that they're not.
please tell me you're joking? do u have any idea how hard, and what goes into the excessively competitive app business? if you're a consumer of the product, ESPECIALLY if you've been using it awhile, you should be more than happy to fork over the $1. and "bait and switch" isn't what they did, nor semantics, you're just wrong.
Posted via the Android Central App
tonyr6
Well-known member
- Nov 20, 2013
- 722
- 0
- 0
I agree with everything you said morphish. As I said I am fine with the author charging a $1 for more advanced features but to ruin the free version with ads to force you to pay for the same features I don't like. I can easily afford a $1 but I won't support the author just to remove ads that should not even be there.
dude, he's not worth arguing with, my guess is textra wouldn't want him as a customer, some people amaze me with how cheap they are ... he's probably the type who goes out to eat with his friends, asks for a separate check then breaks out the calculator
Posted via the Android Central App
That's not my problem. I don't care if this was a hobby, a way to learn coding, a corporately sponsored project, or a way to pay the bills. It's up to the dev to figure out their own life. This is the way they chose to run their business, and that's fine. But here's the thing: if they offer something free and with no ads, and they then purposefully degrade the experience in order to get money, then I will switch apps.
I love paying for more features. I don't like ransoming features I already had.
It is bait and switch if you advertise and promote something, then materially change. It's ok if you don't mind the switch. Nobody is saying you MUST HATE THE SWITCH. I'm just saying I hate the switch, and won't put up with it.
Oh, and the ad hominem attacks were very funny. I'm bringing them up to my Critical Thinking class tomorrow. It will get some laughs, for sure.
"that should not even be there" ... so I guess this guy is supposed to work for free? amazing how some people try to justify things. don't over think this, the guy is simply trying to get paid for his work. if u use his product, pay the $1, if that's not the type of business practice u like, and u have some moral standard to uphold, simply take your business elsewhere. this just absolutely floors me, some people are just ungodly cheap then actually make excuses for it. and it's nothing personal I know plenty of people like that, still amazes me ... I mean, it's $1
Posted via the Android Central App
I'm glad you can justify it. the bottom line is your cheap, if you want to have a laugh tmrw night tell the class that you won't fork over .99 for an app you've been using for awhile
Posted via the Android Central App
Happy to pay him if he had advertised a paid app.
Some people have no self-respect as consumers. I guess with micro-payments being the norm in mobile these days people forget that.
I will. I'll also be sure to tell them that some people think that objecting to deceptive business practices is the same as not valuing labor. They'll probably laugh even more about that.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question App to check health capacity of battery Samsung Phone
- Latest: Taslim Dude 786
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram