evgiz

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hi, I've finally figured out the problem you're facing. There's a bug where an account could sometimes be partially added because it failed mid-login earlier. The next time you try to log in the app would think the account was already there, and then fail to add it again.

If there's an account in your account list, try removing and adding it again, as this might solve the issue. If that does not work there's unfortunately no other way than reinstalling atm. A bug fix is ready and will be included in the next version!

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh right, thanks! I'll add both

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm open to suggestions. What would be a better free/pro setup in your opinion?

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah for sure, these things cut both ways. While subscription might suck, they do have less risk on both sides. If a dev stopped working on their app, people would just stop paying for it - no need to pay everything up front.

As for themes and app icons, they are also part of the pro upgrade. Blocking is free, but custom filters are not. My impression was that most people were happy with this setup since I didn't get much feedback about it during the ~1 month of testing the update went through. I figured multiple account support and things like that was more important for most people.

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Some safety features I've already implemented are measures against NSFW content by default and support for tools like reporting and blocking. When I added filtering I didn't really consider the safety aspect of it until someone pointed it out a couple days ago. I thought of it more as a way for power users to tweak their feed, Apollo for instance also had filtering as a paid feature. Themes and app icons are part of the pro upgrade.

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

This one is a bit trickier than it sounds, but I'll look into it!

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm assuming you're talking about a "share" button for comments? Can definitely add this!

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Hi, sorry for the late (and long) reply. You're right, $30 is definitely a lot to be asking for an app. I'll try to explain where I'm coming from, and why I've landed on this price & monetization model. If anyone have any suggestions on how I can improve things while considering my points as well I'm definitely open to discuss.

But this app is paywalling basic stuff like a comment jump button (everyone else has this for free), content filtering, video scrubbing

When I was working on this update I spent a lot of time considering which features were "essential" and which features were more convenience/nice-to-have features. Two of the bigger features I've decided should be free are multiple accounts & post creation, both of which have been paid features in other apps. I thought everyone having access to these was way more important than app themes or a smart jump button.

Everything that was free in the last version is still free, and of course there's a bunch of new non-pro stuff too. My intent with this update was not to paywall "basic" features, but to offer more hardcore users some extra niceties that in turn support development. I don't expect the majority of people to upgrade, which is totally fine. I'll still keep improving the app for everyone regardless.

make it a reasonable one time purchase for things that don’t cost you money (under $10 imo, $5 would’ve been an easy sell). If you want to justify a subscription model you are gonna need to build features that justify it

I get that the lifetime price is high, I really do. The #1 reason I'm going for this type of subscription model is that Lemmy is so small. Apps like Apollo easily had tens of thousands of users and could therefore charge way way less. For some context - if every single active Avelon user paid for a $5 upgrade, which I'm sure you'd agree is unreasonable, that'd still be barely enough to finance one month of development. That's it. I'm not saying this justifies the price, but Lemmy is still very niche, and with such a niche market the development cost will naturally be spread among much fewer users. With the slow growth of the Lemmy userbase a one-time purchase is very risky from my perspective, and I want Avelon to make sense over a long period of time. I think the devs of both sync (which is $99) and Bean (which is $50) realized this too.

I do believe Avelon can continue to play a part in lowering the barrier of entry to Lemmy and improving the platform as a whole by pushing for more high quality apps. I hope to see Lemmy continue to become the best link-aggregator platform ever, and as that happens prices will naturally decrease.

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not at the moment. Adding support for a full screen videoplayer is in my backlog!

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Sorry, meant build 1.0.6 on the App Store! The old TF build is expired now that the update is out.

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Syncing between the real app store and testflight environments is a bit tricky. I've got a few ideas on how to solve it, but it's not something Apple supports out of the box.

I'll let you know when I've looked at it a bit more - for now I'd just use 1.0.6 since the latest Testflight version only has some minor tweaks & bug fixes.

[–] evgiz@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Working now! Forgot to submit it with the app, but it's up now since yesterday!

view more: ‹ prev next ›