It’s also surprising that even on HN, a place where many people write software for a living, people are avoidant of advertising paid features.
Sorry I didn't find any dark patterns here. If you can elaborate more on this, that would be really helpful.
> It’s also surprising that even on HN, a place where many people write software for a living, people are avoidant of advertising paid features.
Exactly! A lot of users want privacy focused - no ads apps. But many of them are hesitant to pay for it. For them, all apps should be FOSS (that means relying on good will of the developer that he will have motivation to maintain the app regularly or relying on some bug foundations) and no dev should generate revenue from their apps.
I don't think you were being malicious, but it would of been useful to know up front that those RSS features cost money is all. Otherwise I see nothing wrong in your initial comment.
But I am not opposed at all to pay for apps that include the source (and build instructions). I don't mind if it's licensed accordingly to prevent me redistributing it (which would undermine sales). I frequently buy apps like that.
More times than I can count I have bought an app that was later either abandoned when it stopped making money, or got an unwanted UI overhaul that wrecked it, or removed an obscure feature I depended on, etc. I will happily pay for software, but if it's not software I could potentially maintain myself then the amount of money I'm willing to spend goes way down and I'm a lot more hesitant to make the initial purchase.
It's not about money, it's about freedom.
As opposed to paying for it which guarantees you'll get the service you want - except it doesn't. At least FLOSS would give you and others the opportunity to fix bugs /maintain the app themselves.
> But many of them are hesitant to pay for it
Depends what it is. There's a difference paying for a non free app, and tipping for a free app.
