406
One-time payment for ad-free is live in Beta 25. It's $19.99 USD. Update your app if you don't see it. (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by to c/syncforlemmy@lemmy.world
278 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Tap the account switcher in the top left corner and you should see the option.

See my comment for a screenshot. I don't know why I can't seem to post a screenshot in the body of post. Every time I try it gets removed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

I'm doing the ultra at about $23 cdn per year. $2 a month for an app I use about 300 times a day for years seems like a good deal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I'm not going to argue with what you're happy to pay, I'm just curious why you are doing the math based on how much you use it instead of some other metric like the amount of labour it took to produce or maybe how much ad revenue you need to replace?

    I see $23/year for a few years equaling the cost of outright owning a AAA video game (that will receive support and updates for years to follow too) that took millions of dollars and many thousands of man-hours to produce and it doesn't add up...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    These triple a games are expected to be sold in the millions. $20 is about enough for one hour of works in terms of labour. This times expected sales, which are on the thousands at max for Lemmy, and you got what it takes to develop an app like this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    I agree $20 isn't all that much on its own (for a developer it's likely only a third of an hour really) but that's kind of the point. One person's full-time development wage is less than that of 30 people, so why charge just as much just because the audience is much smaller? It seems what you're saying is that Sync isn't currently viable and needs to be over priced (for a comparable product) to survive.

    Also, wouldn't Sync be the equivalent of an indie game in this comparison? Why don't those games have to charge more than the AAA games to make up for the smaller customer base?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I can turn it back around on you and say why do you think the worth is detached from how much usage it gets from its users? If anything something we use and enjoy using should be getting more rather than a one off AAA game we'll enjoy for 20 hours one month.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    There's a resource and human effort cost that is the backing behind the pricing of most things. I'm actually having a very difficult time thinking of something that's priced strictly based on the time+enjoyment metric without factoring labour+material at all outside of maybe famous works or art or other things that are "valuable" simply because they are rare. Are you able to provide an example of something commonly sold that would follow the time+enjoyment pricing scheme to help me wrap my head it?

    A cruise and a staycation don't cost the same even if they're for the same duration, even if you get sick on the cruise and have to cut the trip short. It feels like you're saying "I actually really enjoy the staycation, and even though more resources go into a cruise, I'll gladly pay more to stay at home then go on the cruise" and that can't possibly be what you're saying....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I’m actually having a very difficult time thinking of something that’s priced strictly based on the time+enjoyment metric without factoring labour+material

    Just to be clear I think at a base level labour and material should still be taken into an account. The problem right now is these apps are essentially warring over your attention and in order to do so are hacking our ape brains. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing, that relationship can be somewhat symbiotic, we get entertainment they get ad revenue. However the situations gotten dire as they need to drive profits up and steal attention from each other and instead of innovating and progressing their platform they're maliciously implementing ways to keep you on their platform. We need to swap to a system that's revolved around our money being spent where our enjoyment is at. This negates malicious ad revenue driven profits and might actually drive an era of innovation across big tech which hasn't happened since the early 2010's.

    When talking directly about the fediverse, sure the devs love working on lemmy, but for how long. Quite frankly nobody will agree but we should be paying them to work on it as we should be paying instance admins in some capacity. This is an ad free experience we should really put our money where our mouth (enjoyment) is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Boy do I have some stuff to sell you then! How much do you happen to enjoy air would you say?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •