Date   

locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Jeremy H
 

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 11:36 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 11:04 AM, Samuel Murrayy wrote:
I think we can be clear that the purpose of Groups.io is to make money,
And why do you go to work, exactly? I would argue that the purpose of Groups.io is to provide a service. At some point in the chain providing that service costs money, and the person coordinating everything (Mark) has to put food on the table.
There is a difference between providing a service, and hence making money, and making money by providing a service, I think Mark is, to his credit, trying to do the former: but needing to make enough money, and finding it difficult, under his current businsess plan, to do so.
 
What is so dreadfully wrong with persons using a service being the people who pay for it?
Nothing. The problem is that Mark's business plan (current and future) is that group owners are the people who make the payments.

But they are not the the people using using the service: those are the group members (and Mark's future pricing plan, based on 'per user' pricing, reflects this)

Some group owners, for some groups, are, and will be, willing and able to pay for their groups, because they make money from their members (somehow - by charging for a greater membership, or selling stuff, or... ) or (occasionally) just have money to burn (and these are likely to be put off by an open ended per member price, when the old $110 pa unlimited members premium group charge might have been acceptable).

But others are not: while they are willing to put in the effort of setting up and running groups, they have neither the funds, nor (easily) the means of raising them, to be able to pay for them. And while $0.55 per member per year is not a lot - so you might ask why can't they just pay out of their pocket - it mounts up: 100 members is $55, 1000 $550. And I would suggest that most do not set up groups without at least the hope, if not the expectation, of achieving those sorts of numbers.

So the Achilles heel of Groups.io comes down to the difficulty, and cost, of taking (and accounting for) such small payments (c$0.50 pa) - whether by Groups.io, or group owners... 

And, if you believe that 'free' (or minimal cost) and open basic groups are a 'good thing', It is a pity - in the absence of alternative suggestions - that the suggestion of soliciting donations from members, or charging them (perhaps an annual charge $5 for 'some' groups, extras a bit more) has been rejected. 

A further point: that - in all these posts - the implications of 'excess' members becoming (for future groups) a cost, rather than a benefit (or something that could just ignored), for group owners haven't really been discussed, as owners come to face the issue. 

Jeremy


moderated Re: Include Email Aliases in Member List #suggestion

 

Mark,

Bruce wrote:
... Failing that, if you attempt to invite or direct add an aliased address, the error message could say something more helpful, along the lines of "already a member (as an alias of xx@ yy.com)."

I'd vote for that as the primary suggestion. Then the moderator wouldn't have to search for it.

Shal


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:06 AM, John Wirtz SF wrote:
I find the thread tiresome
As Chris said, all you have to do is stop reading! Or what about learning about the "mute" and "unfollow" features, so that you can completely strike from your vision this tiresome thread that you are continuing to contribute to? :)
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

John Wirtz SF
 

Ellen wrote:

 

There is no way I'm going to charge "my subscribers."  I do not own anything in groups.io; if I was forced to pay, I might see myself as

a renter, a tenant. That's the analogy. Google groups would not do because they have no archives, no files (we do share essays) and no photos

(which we share with one another) -- they are part of the 3 different groups' identities, their memory as it were.

 

This paragraph doesn’t make any sense whatsoever!

 

I find the thread tiresome because the sentiment that is coming across is that the owners of free groups want those who pay for premium or enterprise to subsidise the free/basic groups.

Sorry, that’s not fair trading.  As far as I can see, Mark has set out a pricing plan and isn’t going to change it.

 

John Wirtz


moderated Re: Include Email Aliases in Member List #suggestion

 

I second this.


On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
Email aliases can confound group Owners, who often don't even realize such a feature exists. For example, it's very disconcerting to attempt to invite or direct add an alias address and have the system tell you that address is already a member. 

"??? I don't see it in the Member List..."

Even if you do already know about aliases, this leaves you with the frustrating task of painstakingly opening every member record one by one to find out which account is using the alias. 

To that end, it might be handy if all aliases were listed right there in the Member List, perhaps indented below the subscribed address and in a different color (or bearing a new status badge or something along those lines...haven't thought that completely through). Failing that, if you attempt to invite or direct add an aliased address, the error message could say something more helpful, along the lines of "already a member (as an alias of xx@ yy.com)."

A final thing I would like to open for consideration is the ability of Owners of Premium groups to edit a subscriber's email aliases (as they already can for the primary address).

Thanks for your consideration,
Bruce


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Hi Duane,

You’re way ahead of most group owners in your understanding of “how things work”.  In reading this latest, I must confess I cannot relate much of what you say to my rudimentary comprehension of my own situation.  I’m not going to change the “Subject” (hashtag?) because the Groups.io server doesn’t seem to like that.

My iPhone, personally purchased, operates on the Verizon network.  For a monthly fee, it “works” and I operate on the lowest level “data plan” without a problem so long as I do my web surfing on WiFi.

My “internet”, via WiFi, is supplied by Century Link for a nominal fee.  It is a “wired” service, like I once got through Sprint.  Because I live and have my office in a metal building, my WiFi and cellphone service are severely attenuated, so Verizon provides me with a “Network Extender” that has an outside antenna and brings my Verizon “service” inside and at maximum signal strength.

My email comes from FatCow, where I have a personal domain and email address (my only one, although I can originate more).  Again, there is a monthly fee for email hosting (POP account), and they also handle my domain registration (nominal separate fee annually).

My groups were transferred here from Yahoo about a year and a half ago.  These are, to the best of my knowledge, “email groups” with relatively few participants but many “lurkers”.  One has 875 members at present, the other 777.

In checking our “email burden” under group activity I find my larger group, by far the most active, lists 196 messages so far during December.  Of These, 21 were via “Web” and 175 were via “email”, roughly 1% versus 99%.

You are saying that emails “sent from the site” (presumably groups.io?) represent a “large load” (data stream?) but those sent by “web interface” also represent a “large load”.  To my way of thinking, my email “load” is on the FatCow server (POP account) and I fail to see how that is in any manner a “burden” on Groups.io unless this relates to the presumably separate functions of “send" and “receive”.

Specifically, my email address “sends" and “receives” via the Fatcow server; but when I send a message to my Group.io account, that is then re-broadcast to my 875 members by Groups.io.  In such context, above 175 “email” messages in December were each “re-broadcast” 875 times, for a total of 153,125 messages.  Obviously the same would seem true of  the 21 “web” messages, times 875 equalling 18,375.

To the best of my knowledge none of these messages contained pictures, although several did transmit an attachment of 1 8-1/2 x 11 black and white table.  I can see that groups that transmit attachments constantly, particularly color ones, could represent quite an additional “load” on Groups.io servers.  

It is no t obvious how those emailing via “web” would differ in “load” from those using email.  They aren’t “web surfing”.  On the other hand, one of my members does have a web site on which he hosts hundreds of drawing scans related to our aircraft which would “respond” to an member query much like other web sites. But those queries are individual…the response is individual…it doesn’t get re-broadcast like an email attachment does.

Additionally, I have no idea how those using POP accounts (where the email is downloaded from, in my case, Fatcow, and then eventually deleted) and those using IMAP accounts (where they reside, presumably forever, on Fatcow servers) affect Groups.io other than the “rebroadcast” burden.

Perhaps you could share your comprehension to clarify mine?  (Comments by others also most welcome)

Best!

WRB

— 


On Dec 29, 2020, at 10:41 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 09:52 AM, Mike Hanauer wrote:
This feels like profit creep, like bait and switch.
I don't believe I've ever felt this was the case.  Yes, things change, BUT Mark has always kept his word to existing groups.  Though he doesn't have to (and I'm sure the record keeping would be a lot simpler without it), he's managed to maintain the terms that a group agreed to when they joined up or upgraded (other than increasing features for Premium groups in some cases.)  I keep in mind that these changes would only apply to groups created after January 18.  If someone creates a group then, they agree to the terms in effect at that time.

While I'm here, I'd like to mention something I've been thinking about.  I've been operating under the assumption that those using email create the larger load on the system.  It dawned on me that it may be those online, or more evenly distributed anyway, that create the load.  While there are a lot of emails sent from the site, ~200 per second on average by my guesstimate, using the web interface results in a large load as well.  Each time someone clicks on a link, that page and it's contents must be retrieved and displayed.  While the system may handle things well on average, it's the peak load that determines what infrastructure is needed to support the site, and that has a cost.  I'll continue to support Mark and GIO as much as I can.

Duane


moderated Include Email Aliases in Member List #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

Email aliases can confound group Owners, who often don't even realize such a feature exists. For example, it's very disconcerting to attempt to invite or direct add an alias address and have the system tell you that address is already a member. 

"??? I don't see it in the Member List..."

Even if you do already know about aliases, this leaves you with the frustrating task of painstakingly opening every member record one by one to find out which account is using the alias. 

To that end, it might be handy if all aliases were listed right there in the Member List, perhaps indented below the subscribed address and in a different color (or bearing a new status badge or something along those lines...haven't thought that completely through). Failing that, if you attempt to invite or direct add an aliased address, the error message could say something more helpful, along the lines of "already a member (as an alias of xx@ yy.com)."

A final thing I would like to open for consideration is the ability of Owners of Premium groups to edit a subscriber's email aliases (as they already can for the primary address).

Thanks for your consideration,
Bruce


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:51 PM, John Wirtz SF wrote:
But, please kill or close this boring thread, there’s been enough opinion and it’s getting tiresome now.
I suggest that you stop reading it then. IMHO it is still worthwhile.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Ellen Moody
 

I don't find the thread tiresome.  It has begun to interest me since I discovered all new "free" groups must have under 100 members.
If you don't like what's being said, don't read it.

There is no way I'm going to charge "my subscribers."  I do not own anything in groups.io; if I was forced to pay, I might see myself as
a renter, a tenant. That's the analogy. Google groups would not do because they have no archives, no files (we do share essays) and no photos
(which we share with one another) -- they are part of the 3 different groups' identities, their memory as it were.

Ellen

_


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

John Wirtz SF
 

I think what would be really useful as the thread now becoming slightly confrontational is that Mark bring this discussion to a close with a statement either re-iterating his pricing structure going forward or letting us know it is still under review.

 

If I worked for Mark, and I was tasked with sorting this out, this would be my approach:

 

Groups.io isn’t in the business of assessing how much of a service each individual group provides to its subscribers.  It exists to maintain and improve the platform.

So collecting subscriptions from individual subscribers is a non-starter.

 

When one creates a group, it might be simple support group restricted to a number of subscribers of, as suggested up to a hundred who want an easy way to communicated. 

On the other hand, if you’re creating an interest group that is likely to attract 10,000, then you might need to reconsider the status of the group and make a small charge for membership.  That is the group administrators responsibility, no that of Groups.io.

 

I don’t think that beyond a hundred members, there should be free groups and I would recommend that an intermediate package – if commercially realistic – was offered to smaller groups who relied on member subscriptions.

 

But, it is up to group creators and owners to take responsibility for their groups and charge their subscribers, not the platform provider.

 

One final point about income.  Yahoo, Google, etc have many income streams, not least by sharing your personal data, so they can afford to offer free groups.  Group’s io have only one source, payments for premium and enterprise packages.  He needs more of the group to pay for the service.  Simple.

 

But, please kill or close this boring thread, there’s been enough opinion and it’s getting tiresome now.

 

John Wirtz

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Jones via groups.io
Sent: 30 December 2020 11:37
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Pricing Changes

 

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 11:04 AM, Samuel Murrayy wrote:

I think we can be clear that the purpose of Groups.io is to make money,

And why do you go to work, exactly? I would argue that the purpose of Groups.io is to provide a service. At some point in the chain providing that service costs money, and the person coordinating everything (Mark) has to put food on the table. What is so dreadfully wrong with persons using a service being the people who pay for it?

Not many businesses survive very long by losing money.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 11:04 AM, Samuel Murrayy wrote:
I think we can be clear that the purpose of Groups.io is to make money,
And why do you go to work, exactly? I would argue that the purpose of Groups.io is to provide a service. At some point in the chain providing that service costs money, and the person coordinating everything (Mark) has to put food on the table. What is so dreadfully wrong with persons using a service being the people who pay for it?

Not many businesses survive very long by losing money.

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:29 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
My thesis [when I started Groups.io] was that I could create a good business around it.
...
The per-member pricing structure ... aligns revenue with costs.
Okay, well in that case, I think we can be clear that the purpose of Groups.io is to make money, and free groups have a limited and specific set of purposes, namely (a) it allows people to play around with the system without paying, (b) it serves as a bit of marketing in that it shows the groups.io brand to a few more people and (c) it offers a way for groups to temporarily go into a type of hiatus without the need to recreate everything when the group starts back up again. 

To put it differently, free groups are not the main reason for Groups.io, and the purpose of paid groups isn't simply to help subsidize free groups.

Having come to terms with the above, I would then suggest a different pricing structure:

  • Bronze group: no credit card required, 100 members max, 1 GB storage, basic group.
  • Silver group: credit card required, 100 members free, plus $0.05 per additional member per month, 10 GB storage, basic plus collaboration and donations.
  • Gold group: $10 per month for up to 250 members, plus $0.05 per additional member per month, 20 GB storage per 250 members, all premium features.
  • Platinum group (i.e. Enterprise, with an entirely different pricing structure)

Additional notes or ideas:

  • My reasoning for the silver group is to allow groups who might want to be come larger or use more features to be able to do so without a very sudden change in pricing.  Also, allowing donations for such groups would allow the owners to start gathering money for a potential switch to gold.
  • For silver and gold plans, allow owners to set a preferred maximum annual payment (e.g. $10, $20, $50, etc.) and then receive warnings when that amount is approaching (or the calculated average of it is approaching), and/or when the chosen amount is reached, the group is switched to no-mail (i.e. posting by mail allowed, but reading via web only) and no further uploads to files and photos are allowed until the owner updates the limit.
  • I suggest giving bronze groups a "limited" collaboration suite, i.e. 150 MB files, 150 MB photos, 150 rows database, 15 pages wiki, so that they can get used to using these tools and get to see the advantage of paying for it.  Silver and gold groups get the full collaboration suite (i.e. up to their respective maximums).
  • Another way to reduce bronze groups' cost is to always convert attachments to links (silver and gold groups can choose to have attachments delivered).
  • An alternative way of pricing gold groups would be $10 per month for every 250 members or part thereof (so that 300, 400 or 500 members would all be $20 per month).  The advantage of this for group owners is a more predictable cost at the end of the invoicing period.
  • Let users be counted as members only if they are members for more than 10 days.  This allows people to join a group, look around a bit, and then leave again, without affecting the group numbers or costing the group owner any money.
  • An alternative arrangement is to set the free number for silver groups at 50 instead of 100.  This means that you get money from silver groups quicker, but it is still advantageous for silver groups because they get more storage and they get collaboration and donations.  The fee structure should encourage groups that are willing to pay to start paying as soon as possible, without making it too expensive for them initially or when they're a small group.  Or make both the bronze and silver group's free limit 75 members (it's just simpler).
  • 10% discount for annual instead of monthly payments on the gold plan (I don't see how that can work on the silver plan).

Samuel


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Joseph Hudson
 

Well Mark, here's one for you. I wouldn't mind volunteering my time approving groups or answering support questions if I had the ability on my account. So please keep that into consideration. I manage probably seven or eight blindness groups plus I gave support to the blindness community I definitely see no problem giving you a little bit of support voluntarily to help your service. The only thing I don't have is the technical skills to transfer archives. So if somebody had that ability or the technical knowledge in order to be able to do that, we would have something up and off of the ground.

On Dec 29, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 8:48 AM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@yandex.com> wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. I do have the distinct impression that Mark originally wanted to build communities, and there is nothing to suggest that his original motive was deceit. I have no idea what direction Mark is hoping that Groups.io as a whole should take in future. I do not believe that Mark thinks that non-business groups generally have lots of money available to pay for this type of service. However, do I speculate freely that Mark is aiming at increasing the use of Groups.io by businesses, and that he hopes that businesses who use Groups.io will choose to pay for it. I don't know of Mark's original motive for Groups.io was to make money or to have a nice hobby, but it doesn't affect my opinion of him or his venture.

I started Groups.io (my coding on it started 7 years ago as of next week) because I feel strongly that email groups have distinct advantages over web fora and other discussion mediums for some types of groups. But no one was investing in modernizing them (Yahoo and Google were just maintaining, at best, their email group services). My thesis was that I could create a good business around it. And I still believe that.

There are a few reasons behind the per-member pricing structure changes. It aligns revenue with costs, importantly. Also, the fact is that the business is not yet generating enough revenue for me to be able to hire help. I'm still the only guy running things (Nina doing a great job contracting on the manuals being the exception). You all deserve it to be a real business. It'd be nice to be able to provide better customer support. It'd be nice to be able to more quickly implement TODO items and fixes. It'd be nice if I could take some real time off occasionally; maybe get hit by a bus now and then. :-)


Mark


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Mark,

I don't believe that relying on donations is the way to go, and I
won't be pursuing that.
I hope you mean that only in the sense Mike suggested (becoming a non-profit).

I think a simplified Donation mechanism (which doesn't require the group owner to set up an account at Stripe) could help many group owners find a way to support their group.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27410

I haven't used Stripe, but I have set up an account through Square in support of a PTA unit. I found that experience a bit fraught -- and I wasn't even putting my own bank account on the line (the unit, fortunately, has its own). I can imagine how the current Donation mechanism might daunt group owners who have no prior experience with CC merchant accounts.

Taking it a step further, I think allowing Basic groups to use a simplified version could help them cross the threshold to a Premium plan.

Shal


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Barry_M
 

For whatever it's worth, I think M K really nails it.

Mark has built a wonderful platform here and without team. If anything, I'd like to see him grow it more rapidly...with outside capital or organically. More likely both.  But, from ethical or societal perspectives, this isn't the Salvation Army or local church. It is a business.  Businesses have to generate positive cash flow to survive.  Business with real growth potential, as GIO surely has, can also do a world of good for the many people who eventually may be hired to support that growth in different roles.  There is nothing wrong or less admirable about building an honest and successful business.  Non-profits are also wonderful and obviously do a ton of good in the world. Successful companies increasingly have CSR (corporate social responsibility) teams that support non-profits with whatever resources.  

MK really speaks the truth when (s)he writes "Whatever business model is chosen by [Mark], there are going to be users who will be unhappy for one reason or another."  You can take that to the bank and we've already seen that on this long thread.  That aside, the ethics and honesty behind this for-profit company are very evident to me and rather awesome.

Mark appreciates input/feedback but isn't asking for votes since businesses aren't democracies.  Still, my vote is "carry on!"  A great platform by a wonderful and accomplished entrepreneur with a big heart. That's what groups.io is to me.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

M K Ramadoss
 

For many of us, groups.io is indispensable after Yahoo shut down.
We are getting outstanding support from him.
Unless it makes sufficient profit to keep Mark in business, it will fail and many of us will lose the invaluable resource.
Whatever business model is chosen by him, there are going to be users who will be unhappy for one reason or another.
Whatever Mark decides, I am going to support him. If I am not happy, I can always use any other service that I am happy with.

My 0.02

MKR


On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 5:29 PM Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 8:48 AM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean.  I do have the distinct impression that Mark originally wanted to build communities, and there is nothing to suggest that his original motive was deceit.  I have no idea what direction Mark is hoping that Groups.io as a whole should take in future.  I do not believe that Mark thinks that non-business groups generally have lots of money available to pay for this type of service.  However, do I speculate freely that Mark is aiming at increasing the use of Groups.io by businesses, and that he hopes that businesses who use Groups.io will choose to pay for it.  I don't know of Mark's original motive for Groups.io was to make money or to have a nice hobby, but it doesn't affect my opinion of him or his venture.

I started Groups.io (my coding on it started 7 years ago as of next week) because I feel strongly that email groups have distinct advantages over web fora and other discussion mediums for some types of groups. But no one was investing in modernizing them (Yahoo and Google were just maintaining, at best, their email group services). My thesis was that I could create a good business around it. And I still believe that. 

There are a few reasons behind the per-member pricing structure changes. It aligns revenue with costs, importantly. Also, the fact is that the business is not yet generating enough revenue for me to be able to hire help. I'm still the only guy running things (Nina doing a great job contracting on the manuals being the exception). You all deserve it to be a real business. It'd be nice to be able to provide better customer support. It'd be nice to be able to more quickly implement TODO items and fixes. It'd be nice if I could take some real time off occasionally; maybe get hit by a bus now and then. :-)


Mark


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Peter Cook
 

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 05:53 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Also, I don't see how changing the pricing structure for future groups could be considered a 'bait and switch'.
Of course not - particularly since you raised the possibility on this forum just over a year ago.


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 8:48 AM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean.  I do have the distinct impression that Mark originally wanted to build communities, and there is nothing to suggest that his original motive was deceit.  I have no idea what direction Mark is hoping that Groups.io as a whole should take in future.  I do not believe that Mark thinks that non-business groups generally have lots of money available to pay for this type of service.  However, do I speculate freely that Mark is aiming at increasing the use of Groups.io by businesses, and that he hopes that businesses who use Groups.io will choose to pay for it.  I don't know of Mark's original motive for Groups.io was to make money or to have a nice hobby, but it doesn't affect my opinion of him or his venture.

I started Groups.io (my coding on it started 7 years ago as of next week) because I feel strongly that email groups have distinct advantages over web fora and other discussion mediums for some types of groups. But no one was investing in modernizing them (Yahoo and Google were just maintaining, at best, their email group services). My thesis was that I could create a good business around it. And I still believe that. 

There are a few reasons behind the per-member pricing structure changes. It aligns revenue with costs, importantly. Also, the fact is that the business is not yet generating enough revenue for me to be able to hire help. I'm still the only guy running things (Nina doing a great job contracting on the manuals being the exception). You all deserve it to be a real business. It'd be nice to be able to provide better customer support. It'd be nice to be able to more quickly implement TODO items and fixes. It'd be nice if I could take some real time off occasionally; maybe get hit by a bus now and then. :-)


Mark


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

Chris Jones
 

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 10:53 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I don't believe that relying on donations is the way to go, and I won't be pursuing that. Also, I don't see how changing the pricing structure for future groups could be considered a 'bait and switch'.
Neither do I in both cases. My own preference is for Ken Schweizer's suggestion to be at least considered, i.e. making individual account holders liable for a subscription. I know that some have already written against that idea and I can understand why you might be reluctant to go down that route but given that a $5 per annum charge would raise a great deal of income for Groups.io and put it in a much more secure financial position; far more "future proof" than the current arrangements.

I'll set out more reasoning tomorrow as it's 2300 UK time and I need my sleep!

Chris


locked Re: Pricing Changes #update

 

Mike,

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:49 PM Mike Hanauer via groups.io <MGHanauer=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

What I have suggested, not demanded, is a balance that I believe the present track lacks and reasons behind my thinking. If you are reading what I say, it is with closed eyes. How about considering the substance of my thinking?


I don't believe that relying on donations is the way to go, and I won't be pursuing that. Also, I don't see how changing the pricing structure for future groups could be considered a 'bait and switch'. Finally, Google Groups (or one of the other email group services) may indeed be a better fit for some groups. I have no issue with that, and it's one of the many reasons I make it as easy as possible for groups to export their data.

Mark

2801 - 3200 of 30046