That's assuming their userbase is a lot less elastic than it probably is. They'd have to retain at least half of their current users in order for that to even come close to replacing current revenue. The reason these pay-with-your-privacy businesses are so successful is because charging actual money is a huge barrier that will drive away many customers.
I imagine it would be frustrating for companies which have actual real revenue and growth as opposed to ones that have grown 800% from 1 to 8 users in 3 months.
If it were, hypothetically, come percentage of new users who were consuming most of the resources, it would still be just as big a problem. (In fact, maybe more so if a changing pattern of use suggests that your pricing model is no longer profitable.)
Yeah, but if we're going by a business features monetization model, what would matter is the number of businesses that are signed up, not the number of users.
Not necessarily. Sometimes more users is better than higher revenue.
If those 200 million users have to choose between paying you $20/year or paying only $1 and joining a network with 1 billion users...they'll probably choose the later. Then you won't see those 4 billion dollars.
I don't think this is primarily about saving money on licensing or bandwidth or whatever. It's more about what percentage of the accounts that are sharing will pay for an extra user, or will have one or more of the ejected users get their own subscription, and whether that added revenue comes out to more than the loss from people just dropping the platform.
I only meant that their costs are too high compared to the revenue per user. It's absolutely true that they could solve their profitability issues by increasing their revenue per user assuming that didn't in turn increase the costs.
reply