moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion


Jeremy H
 

Some of the recent posts seem to be trying to avoid the fundamentals: Groups.io has to be paid (or it will go the way of Yahoo groups); that payment has to be, in some combination, by groups owners and members; payment of individual group memberships (55cents a time on Mark's proposal) cannot be economically made; and that, as Mark has decided (thanks!) that existing groups have their current charges 'grandfathered' without increase, new groups will have to pay more than might be regarded as their fair share (and I would also suggest that existing, long standing, groups cause more than their fair share of costs).

I struggle to think that there is a better (read: less bad) way forward than - essentially - Samuel's proposal:
  • a group owner can create and have a free group with minimal features, and a limited number of members
  • group owners can pay for more features; and more members. Based on what they want and can afford.
  • members can have free membership of groups, as provided (free or paid for by owners) above. If they want more, they have to pay for a (groups.io) membership, providing for more group memberships.
The rest is details... No one wants to pay; someone has to; anybody got a better idea?

(The eagle eyed might spot what I have (implicitly) added to Samuel's idea: the concept of larger basic groups, where owners pay for more members, but not more features. But this is an extra option,which would reduce simplicity, and might not be worth it)

Jeremy

Join main@beta.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.