It’s really striking how much of a difference there is between free, and even a penny, especially when that is a recurring charge. For me at least, if I have to pay for something it must have demonstrated value (either via demo, or other users, or a free tier). Only then will I consider the mental overhead of managing yet another subscription. That is to say nothing of the actual cost.
This idea specifically doesn’t make sense. Why are contributors the ones who are paying? Shouldn’t it be advertisers, employers, and “sponsors” who foot the bill?
Creating a contributor account should be free. From there, active contribution should be rewarded in some way. Those looking to capitalize on the contribution of others should pay. Think bounties, sponsorships (project or individual), or even Mechanical Turk like tasks.
You still have to overcome the existing competition in this space.
Why are contributors the ones who are paying?
- Because contributors are also consumers
- Because it’s a way to bootstrap the economy.
- Because there is no better metric to determine who desirable/important a project is than checking “how many people are willing to put money on it”, even if a small amount. Github stars do not pay any bills and are cheap to buy.
Shouldn’t it be advertisers, employers, and “sponsors” who foot the bill?
They would be. I’d hope that the majority of the funds would come from the big payers. But if there is one thing that the collapse of the “Web 2.0” (Twitter/Reddit) is showing is that it is important to have the interests of the users aligned with the interests of the site owners, and if end users are not paying, then they are only eyeballs and the site owners will be aligned only with the big sponsors.
