On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:15 AM, Dave Sergeant wrote:
When the reality of the situation becomes clear to the wider world (the new plans currentlyI have quoted just a part of Dave's post but I think it is all relevant. Although his last sentence is arguably apocalyptic it might just be true, even though I sincerely hope it isn't.
With all due respect to Mark I think that the proposed charging scheme is messy and unduly complex, not improved by the addition of the Donate function. IMHO a large part of that messiness and complexity is down to the the intention of maintaining grandfather rights to all the Basic (free) groups created hitherto and I honestly believe that nice as though those rights are they are no longer sustainable, and will become even less so as time passes.
In large part that is why I suggested the introduction of a charge per Account in the previous thread on the subject. As then mentioned the sort of charge I was suggesting was in the order of $5 per annum (or its equivalent in other currencies) which (if you think about it) is less than it costs to buy a newspaper every day for a week. Hardly unaffordable I would suggest; Dave mentioned hobby - based groups and $5 per annum is certain to be a great deal less than people spend on their hobbies.
Some have argued that "people will leave if charged"; well... let them. Why should Mark or anyone else have to subsidise a group of people who expect a service such as Groups.io to be free in perpetuity? What right have freeloaders (for want of a better term) to more or less demand that Premium or Enterprise Groups pay for them for ever?
To me such an expectation is nothing short of outrageous. I honestly believe that an "Account Charge" is the cleanest and best way forward, ensuring that Groups.io has sufficient income for the future; OK - it might need to be "nuanced" even if that increases the complexity a bit, but I still cannot see a better way of ensuring Groups.io's solid financing.