It’s not about the app. It has nothing to do with the app itself to be fair. It’s the fact to have ads. Ads aren’t the spirit and the philosophy of Lemmy.
People are fine to pay for the app. Money isn’t the issue either. The dev should not assume Lemmy is a new Reddit. It’s different with different spirit and philosophy. This point has to be taken in consideration.
That’s the beauty of have a multitude of different apps. You choose the one that feels right for you. Much like how you can choose another Lemmy instance.
Yes, sure, you can choose whatever you want. It doesn’t make my opinion wrong. It’s not in the philosophy of the fediverse. People can use it with an ads tracked app of they want. I respect it.
It’s a hard no for me and I will express it. It could be a hard yes if they will be a one time payment version without free ads base one.
The dev said there already will be. I hope you’ll support a hard working, singular dev who puts a lot of work into an app and engages with its users like LJD.
an opinion cannot be wrong. but it also cannot be right. you make a fair point with what you’re saying. the dev is already planning on a single time purchase, but a sub option is definitely not “morally wrong.”
It can be morally wrong depending on the person’s visions. It’s not that this vision is wrong or right. It’s a personal one. Nobody did this vision mandatory.
Although I do not agree with your opinion above, but I think your opinion is valid and you don’t deserve the downvotes.
My opinion is that Sync and Lemmy are two different things with two different philosophies. Yes they are interconnected, but they are both separate entities, and it’s not like Sync is built off of Lemmy’s source code. The dev should get compensated for the time and resources he put into the source code of Sync, and if ads is a way to contribute to that, then so be it.
I don’t think your opinion is wrong. It’s an opinion, and that’s fine.
As a developer myself, I do understand that the dev wants to be compensated for all the hours he puts in, but I am also aware that we’re all using software everyday in many different ways that are made in the free time of many people, without any compensation. Both are valid.
You can choose whatever app fits you. That is the power of choice. Some of us are really ok with non intrusive ads or paying for the app. He said that one time payment for removing ads will come soon.
Says who? I’m just curious who decides what Lemmy’s philosophy is. Does that philosophy extend across all instances or only specific ones? Or is it baked into the source code somehow?
Personally I think ads are alright. But that’s just my philosophy.
It’s not about the app. It has nothing to do with the app itself to be fair. It’s the fact to have ads. Ads aren’t the spirit and the philosophy of Lemmy.
People are fine to pay for the app. Money isn’t the issue either. The dev should not assume Lemmy is a new Reddit. It’s different with different spirit and philosophy. This point has to be taken in consideration.
That’s the beauty of have a multitude of different apps. You choose the one that feels right for you. Much like how you can choose another Lemmy instance.
Yes, sure, you can choose whatever you want. It doesn’t make my opinion wrong. It’s not in the philosophy of the fediverse. People can use it with an ads tracked app of they want. I respect it.
It’s a hard no for me and I will express it. It could be a hard yes if they will be a one time payment version without free ads base one.
The dev said there already will be. I hope you’ll support a hard working, singular dev who puts a lot of work into an app and engages with its users like LJD.
an opinion cannot be wrong. but it also cannot be right. you make a fair point with what you’re saying. the dev is already planning on a single time purchase, but a sub option is definitely not “morally wrong.”
It can be morally wrong depending on the person’s visions. It’s not that this vision is wrong or right. It’s a personal one. Nobody did this vision mandatory.
Although I do not agree with your opinion above, but I think your opinion is valid and you don’t deserve the downvotes.
My opinion is that Sync and Lemmy are two different things with two different philosophies. Yes they are interconnected, but they are both separate entities, and it’s not like Sync is built off of Lemmy’s source code. The dev should get compensated for the time and resources he put into the source code of Sync, and if ads is a way to contribute to that, then so be it.
I don’t think your opinion is wrong. It’s an opinion, and that’s fine.
As a developer myself, I do understand that the dev wants to be compensated for all the hours he puts in, but I am also aware that we’re all using software everyday in many different ways that are made in the free time of many people, without any compensation. Both are valid.
The Dev has just announced he’s pushed beta version 25 that adds a one time payment option.
One time payment update was just pushed out!
You can choose whatever app fits you. That is the power of choice. Some of us are really ok with non intrusive ads or paying for the app. He said that one time payment for removing ads will come soon.
Says who? I’m just curious who decides what Lemmy’s philosophy is. Does that philosophy extend across all instances or only specific ones? Or is it baked into the source code somehow?
Personally I think ads are alright. But that’s just my philosophy.