• Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree, that that’s a bad part of it.

    But we come a bit full circle here:
    OpenSubs pays for the server and availability and service speed.
    I assume the speed they provide ain’t the cheapest server they could get their hands on.
    If the cost of a free/unauthenticated users and the server bill breaks even with the VIP payment (cant call it a donation imo) then they should have all the rights to limit free users.

    Now if they actively lock features, then I have no feelings for them.

    • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Every service that disabled or limited the API has seen an increase in running costs, because people turn to scraping, which costs them more resources overall, and cannot be controlled by the site owners as easily.

      Let’s be honest, though, hosting text files with a search bar isn’t that much expensive to justify a response like this.

      It’s fine if they want to earn money, but then they should be upfront about it, and not making up stories about fluke running costs. I’d rather see a donation button.

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Totally valid and agree with your stance.

        But I feel like business decision in these times are rarely backed by good reasoning beyond quick cash and seldom long term thinking. So good job OpenSubs? Yay?