zlacker

>>robbie+(OP)
I don’t see the issue. Apollo should charge a subscription fee that equals (cost of “reasonable API access + desired profit)/.70 and cap the number of request per user so it remains profitable.

Users should understand and I would gladly pay for Apollo per month.

>>scarfa+OI
The current subscription price is $1.50 a month or $10 a year, so presuming the same profit the cost would have to jump to a bit more than $5 a month or $53 a year. Apollo also had a lifetime tier that would have to go away, because it was priced without knowing that future costs would be so much higher.

This also entails getting rid of the free tier and imposing usage limits on the remaining subscribers since a few people could easily blow out the average and drive up costs.

There are definitely people willing to pay those costs (I count myself as one of them, as well), but the lack of apps like Apollo being successful at that price point probably means that it is not a sustainable business.

>>hraedo+0L
> Apollo also had a lifetime tier that would have to go away, because it was priced without knowing that future costs would be so much higher.

A “lifetime” purchase for any app is always a bad idea and is a Ponzi scheme. Mobile apps always require maintenance and updates.

Now of course I understand that he could have never predicted such a price increase.