Sorry, I didn't follow the cable tv analogy.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
In any case there are still USENET providers around who charge individuals a mostly flat fee for access to thousands of groups. (Some people may not know that USENET was the original "groups".)
Supposedly they are making a profit doing so. They do charge more than the various individual pricing plans that have been suggested for Groups.io (usually about $10/mo or less), but there are also free USENET servers for those who can live with short retention periods for posted articles.
I am considering starting a USENET group for our organization's interests. For reasons other than the present topic the internet climate these days makes it less and less desirable to comply with the designs of corporate entities who have other aspirations besides profit.
On 12/25/20 18:18, KWKloeber via groups.io wrote:
>>> It just seems like it would make more sense if the subscriber were
the customer instead of the group owner.<<<
This makes little or no sense (nonsense?) from Mark’s point of view operating a business. It would be tantamount (in reverse) to cable subscribers needing to have a relationship with each and every advertiser, NBC, ABC, CBS, ESPN and every other network, and every sports franchise, and every independent station carried, microwave tower owners, satellite communications providers, and everyone else involved in bringing you cable programming — versus just paying a cable bill. Cable subscribers wouldn’t care to do that no more than Mark should want to do the reverse with group members.
Since this was the free service that was better than sliced bread, I think Mark might provide an explanation as to how the cost is closely related to the # of members. i.e., How does 401 members cost 55¢ more? What costs money, seems logical to me, is activity, not so much the number of members.
We have 1600+ members, about two dozen are active and post and take up bandwidth with photos etc. The remainder simply receive emails - probably less than 20% of those active actually use the web interface (strictly email posting.)
If that user model truly warrants the kind of costs proposed in the new year, it brings a few things to mind:
If something seems too good to be true, it probable is. Migrating 1600 from what was free Y! to a new free endeavor with all new and wonderful bells and whistles seemed too good to me (I’m not the owner and wasn’t the one making decisions) and it’s proved out.
And it smacks of either a poorly thought out entrepreneurship or a bait and switch (which I “know” it wasn’t). From a 1600 free group to one at nearly a grand a year is tough to justify that this was realistically and well thought out. Mark may be an IT genius, but on face value/history not great at business projections.
I’m fearful that g.io will end up either costing medium-sized users out of the market or becoming nothing but an “elite” service, geared toward enterprise users. Oh well.
It reminds me of so many friends who don’t have a clue and have said, “I’m gonna open a restaurant (or bar) and make me a fortune.” They have no clue about the true costs and income involved.