I didn't think you were attacking my character - I thought you were saying that ...

Retric · on Nov 14, 2008

To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"As a software vendor who wants to be benevolent, but not rip myself off, I really like this about Freemium: do “good” and “well” at the same time. ... But for selling software, if you were truly benevolent, wouldn't you give it all away for free? ... I think the solution to the first problem is to price your software (roughly) in proportion to the value customers get from it."

I was trying to say you misrepresented freemium by describing the reasons to use it in terms of social good. A totally ruthless business person may decide to use it because it let's them maximize their profit. Giving away service for less than their cost to the company is all about building or maintaining market share which is why it can be illegal for monopolies to under price their services in the US.

Anyway, their are plenty of models that involve giving away services Drug dealer giving away the first hit, TV / Radio. However, it's only Freemium if you have a built in connection to better service level and keep offering the free service. A Photo sharing site that only let's people download your pictures 100 times an hour before you had to pay would be a freemium service. If using freemium makes you more money than charging people for that level of service how does that fit into social good? I mean you make more money and people who don't pay get a free service what's not to like?

PS: It's easy to use a straw man argument without intending to. Just be careful when you start describing or defining what something really means or what it's benefits are because you can easily overlook what it's about and have a long essay that misses the point.

13ren · on Nov 14, 2008

I wasn't defining Freemium; just using it as a jumping off point for talking about social good (because the blog author mentioned "do good" and "do well").

I'm concerned about social good, for the reasons pg discusses (morale, confidence, people want to help you). It feels good to do good. That's my topic. Freemium is not my topic.

I agree that Freemium could be used by a "totally ruthless business person" - but that explicitly isn't the case I was talking about (though evidently not sufficiently explicit).

Therefore, you aren't addressing the part of my comment that I'm interested in - that's because you saw it as trying to define Freemium in a way you disagree with. Maybe I could have been clearer that I wasn't defining Freemium. Actually, I consciously chose the qualification "But for selling software" to distinguish my subject from Freemium - I happily concede that this qualification may have been inadequate to the purpose. Maybe also I shouldn't post that in a comment on an article about Freemium - but the article also was about doing good and doing well, so there is a relation - though clearly not the one you expected. BTW what you say about Freemium seems pretty reasonably to me from my wider reading, although I don't take a position on what it is or isn't; I'm not arguing that.

At the moment, the issue of doing good is very important to me, personally, and I can't afford to let it slip away. If my topic wasn't wasn't so important to me, I would happily switch to your topic (definition of Freemium) and discuss that.

PS: That also explains why you give advise me to be careful when I start describing or defining what something really means or what it's benefits are - it's because you thought I was doing that. I wasn't.