Actually, "free riders" is an excellent thinking model, and the likely most useful way to analyze it.
He needs to create a sustainable app/service, and does not have a lot of external VC resources to burn while doing so. Thus, it must be sustainable in real time.
Server loads are apparently one of his biggest expenses, so he must optimize to minimize those resources.
OTOH, allowing people to take substantial 'free rides' to test the product in their situation is an excellent way to get new paying users, and often an essential gateway to conversion. I'll hardly sign up for anything without a real test drive.
So, letting potential customers get some 'free riding' is good, but too much will sink the ship.
It looks like he has a limited time 60-day demo and also a no server unlimited time demo. Both seem like good ways to limit the resources given away for free, while providing enough 'free rides' to entice them to pay for the journey.
I'm already heading over check it out after just browsing the main page & comments.
Now, if you are trying to say that mentioning the "free rider" term in public is somehow insulting to the potential users. I don't think so. He's not calling them "freeloaders" which has a more derogatory connotation. the "free rider" term carries a connotation a little bit like I've won a free ride, but it isn't a permanet free pass. I wouldn't find "hey, you get a free ride for two months" at all insulting.
HaHa! The "eats resources" would not be the most friendly approach . . . although framed in the right context, the A/B test might come out different than we expect!
Overall I agree, if all you are saying is that the "free rider who eats resources" phrasing isn't the most customer friendly possible usage, all other things being equal
All I was saying is if he calls trial users "free riders eating resources" on a tech site which we all understand the verbiage and where this comes from.
How will he treat paying customers ? I smell double standards. That's all I am saying.
He needs to create a sustainable app/service, and does not have a lot of external VC resources to burn while doing so. Thus, it must be sustainable in real time.
Server loads are apparently one of his biggest expenses, so he must optimize to minimize those resources.
OTOH, allowing people to take substantial 'free rides' to test the product in their situation is an excellent way to get new paying users, and often an essential gateway to conversion. I'll hardly sign up for anything without a real test drive.
So, letting potential customers get some 'free riding' is good, but too much will sink the ship.
It looks like he has a limited time 60-day demo and also a no server unlimited time demo. Both seem like good ways to limit the resources given away for free, while providing enough 'free rides' to entice them to pay for the journey.
I'm already heading over check it out after just browsing the main page & comments.
Now, if you are trying to say that mentioning the "free rider" term in public is somehow insulting to the potential users. I don't think so. He's not calling them "freeloaders" which has a more derogatory connotation. the "free rider" term carries a connotation a little bit like I've won a free ride, but it isn't a permanet free pass. I wouldn't find "hey, you get a free ride for two months" at all insulting.