![]() ![]() In what other industry is this an acceptable thing to do. Am I supposed to be thankful to Pocket Casts. Selling you lifetime access, then rephrasing it as giving you 3 years for free seems like a messed up thing to do. They can shove the three years offer up their ass. They created a beautifully designed UI once, seemingly by accident, and now they're just gonna monetize that popularity until they can't anymore. Over the past year the devs have revealed themselves as typical silicon valley scum. They have the gall to come in here and claim they are making these changes "so podcasting can stay open". Instead they claim that down is up, pat themselves on the back, and expect us to thank them for their generosity. Show contrition, "sorry but our model was unsustainable, but this way you'll get these cool new features", etc. There was a way of making this change without being a dishonest villain. Three years, wow! I can tell how amazing that is because of how they bolded it!ītw can one of these dipshits explain how "starts costing money in three years" is also "no strings attached"? rofl. Presenting this decision to change lifetime access to a monthly sub as a gift to users because it only takes effect three years from now? Wow, I'm so impressed by your generosity, you sure did the right thing, please pat yourself on the back harder. This para is probably the most disgusting one. It doesn't matter if you paid 5 years ago, or just last month, we're going to gift each and every one of you with three years of Pocket Casts Plus. Integration with the desktop version is very much a "feature" which is now literally being locked behind a paywall.īefore you freak out, we want to let you know that we want to do the right thing by everyone who has ever paid for the web and desktop apps. Sorry guys, nice try but that's still a lie. I guess they're trying to skate by on the technicality that they're only referring to the Android app here, as if that's not part of a larger ecosystem including the desktop version which people also paid for. We aren't locking any existing features behind a paywall. And they wouldn't have taken seven paragraphs of buttering up the reader before sharing the bad news. A human being with a sense of shame would have titled it "We're now charging monthly, and here's why". What an insult to the users.įirst they title this post: "We're now free, and here's why." As if users are the beneficiaries here. The price change and the way it's communicated as well. Support, features and many more awesome things in the future. Point where we’ll stick around to keep it up to date. We’ve built the web player that we want to use. If you like what you see, we'll ask you for $9. No monthly subscriptions or freemium hoo-ha. If they had any integrity they would honour their commitments to existing customers.Įdit: Went on the Wayback Machine and found this on landing page from around the time I purchased the webplayer: There is nothing wrong with subscription models if that's what customers know they are signing up to. I don't care about any of the other "plus" benefits. They've bait-and-switched it for a delayed subscription model and my lifetime purchase has become a 3-year purchase. I paid for the web player because it was a one-time purchase. This is a huge slap in the face for existing customers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |