Conversation

Notices

1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2020 15:20:13 EDT lnxw48a1
   I haven’t read much about #Twitter’s new “subscription” thing (paid, like App Dot Net #ADN tried years back). But by comparing it to ADN, I think I have already stated my view on how likely it is to succeed.
   
   Can they find a way to make it succeed? I’d say yes: add extra “paid only” features. If people care enough about those features, they’ll pay. If paid users lose the “promoted tweets” ads and the algorithmic timelines, some people will likely pay for that, too.
   1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2020 15:28:46 EDT lnxw48a1

      in reply to
      I wanted #ADN to succeed, because I felt that many of #Twitter’s user-hostile anti-features were meant as ways to increase advertising revenue (and often copied from #Facebook, where said user-hostile anti-features frequently did increase ad revenue).
      
      But, I thought, how many people will pay for App Dot Net, when they can grit their teeth and use Twitter without paying? My answer was “not enough to make it profitable”, and that turned out to be true.
   2. mangeurdenuage (mangeurdenuage@loadaverage.org)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2020 15:43:38 EDT mangeurdenuage

      in reply to
      >I’d say yes: add extra “paid only” features.
      Aka bait.