Yeah, why are some people saying itâs a hundred dollars? Iâm still using the free version, but my Google Play page is saying 20 bucks. I donât know where that extra 80 is coming from
Comment on As an OG Reddit Sync user of over 10 years, all this arguing really brings a tear to my eye. đĽ˛
OR3X@lemm.ee â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
$20 to support a solo dev AND remove ads from his awesome lemmy client? Sweet!
sarcasticsunrise@lemm.ee â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
RaulitoElLobito@lemmy.world â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
Sync ultra
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
electriccars@startrek.website â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
I too dream of a world where weâve moved on from capitalism to a socialist utopia like is in the United Federation of Planets, but we are not currently in that world. So until that time, we all have to earn a living to pay our landlords and feed ourselves.
For most things we are given a choice between ads or paying, and I almost always choose paying for no ads as I canât stand them either. But until developers can live without bills and only do work for free because they enjoy it, our choice remains pay for no ads or be served ads. So I paid for no ads.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
So I deleted the original comment because I found out that there was more to the Sync story than just advertising, and I realized that my comment wasnât up to snuff. I didnât mean to deceive anyone.
That was exactly my point though: we do not have only two choices [(1) to pay for no ads and (2) to be served ads]. I listed some some alternative monetization schemes that donât encourage consumerism. Namely, premium support for paying users, custom feature requests for users willing to pay the development cost, or luxury features that, while nice to have, arenât necessary for the functioning of the app.
This point was probably in response to the section of the deleted comment where I argued that stuff that is done only for money probably shouldnât happen at all. I stand by that. However, I do recognize the need for developers to eat. (I thought I said as much in the deleted comment.) For this reason, I use all sorts of software that I have paid for, and will continue to do so [2]. However, I will not pay a developer for their software if the functionality theyâre selling me is ânot having ads,â because ads shouldnât exist.
I shouldnât have to pay for my software not to kick me in the balls; similarly, I shouldnât have have to pay for my software not to show me ads. Unlike being kicked in the balls [1], every waking moment of my life up until recently has been crammed with ads.
There are an infinite number of ways to make money that donât require advertising, and I would be willing to pay for them in general [2]. Hell, Iâll be willing to donate for no reward [2]. Iâm not against making money in an arbitrary way (at least under current conditions), but I most certainly oppose advertising as a specific way of making money.
[1] Iâm not âintoâ that, but in case it isnât clear, I would rather be kicked in the balls than see one more godforsaken advertisement. I cannot stress enough how much I hate advertising.
[2] âŚonce I have a non-zero income.
electriccars@startrek.website â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
Instead of seeing it as a charge to remove ads, maybe look at it as buying the ad free app from the dev? Thatâs how I see it. And giving people the option to use the app for free with ads is IMO a decent trade off.
settoloki@lemmy.one â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
You know youâre not paying for âno adsâ right? Youâre simply using an alternative payment method. If somebody canât afford something youâre suggesting we exclude them? Make it paid for only? The ads serve as payment for those without the means or are just unwilling to pay and still get the same options as everyone else. For someone that hates capitalism youâre sure good at preaching it.
DadVolante@sh.itjust.works â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
Iâm gonna be really happy when school is back in session.