Talk:Freemium

message: I find it stupid that the article starts off defining freeium with a  LINK to a similarly unusual word "portmanteau" ,rather than simply call it a "blend of words". This type of obfuscation drives Wikipedia fans nuts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.14.138 (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

message: Not disputing the name of the model, but can this really be attributed to Fred Wilson as the first to describe something that WinZip and other shareware / freeware software makers have been doing for years?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.80.112 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that freemium and shareware are very closely related ideas. Both of them (often) involve some things you are given for free, and other things that you pay for. However, there is a distinction: One is a piece of software that I run on my own computer without any connection to the internet. The other is a web service with software that runs only on that web server, which (typically) derives a lot of its value from the many people who interact via that web server. Have shareware/freeware software makers really been doing that? Even if they haven't, have other people been doing something like that before Fred Wilson -- perhaps calling it a different name? Perhaps some bulletin board system or Usenet provider? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: That's like saying that since people have been out in the sun for tens of thousands of years, it is ludicrous to say that 'getting a suntan' was first articulated in 1867, even though it was.  Feel free to post the reference to the earlier citation of "freemium." — Safety Cap (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: I stumbled across this term and think it is the best way to describe how many web sites and businesses operate these days.
Freemium = Free and Premium (thats how I see it)
With the talk and perhaps hyped out of proportion Web2 scene, this description of a freemium business model could include such sites as 'www.dyndns.org' (who give away free dynamic DNS services but offer other premium features with with their Account Upgrade service) who incidentally have been running this way for over 10 years.
Also such social networking sites like 'last.fm' which are available free for all, but a subscription gives you 'red carpet benefits'.
My personal conclusion is that although the origins of the word have probably pre-existed its coin of phrase, it should be included within modern day language (or at least included within modern day buzz words).
Deadpan110 (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DELETE. Include it in Wiktionary by all means but not Wikipedia.  Better to describe that services are free for basic service with optional paid for extras than to complicate articles with neologisms.  This article is a dictionary definition  exactly what wiktionary is intended for. -- Horkana (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemium Should be included on Wikipedia and Dictionaries - (opinion) 

message: Why has this page been tagged as article which may not be notable enough? In the world of web-based services / SaaS, freemium most definitely deserves a mention. Ankur Banerjee (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are guidelines describing what is notable, the template links to some of them. Usage doesn't automatically make it notable.  Articles discussing its usage might make it notable. It is new word but not a new idea and might deserve a place in Wiktionary but a good encyclopedia keeps it simple and understandable to a wide audience and avoids using jargon and neologisms.  -- Horkana (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Probably better fits the Urban Dictionary rather than Wiktionary, never mind Wikipedia. How apt that I first read the term on thedailywtf.com. The business model had been in use by the FOSS movement for years before this new term was coined; and there are probably several gazillion other cases throughout history where a thing was given away for free, but if you wanted more/bigger/better, you had to pay. UK Road Tax, for example: you pay nothing for walking or cycling, but you pay extra for driving a motorized vehicle; and the bigger the vehicle, the more you pay. Just because somebody gives it a cutesy name doesn't make it notable.--Rfsmit (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This is different from the business model discussed in this entry, but when I worked in circulation marketing at a consumer magazine, the word "freemium" was used (well before 2006) to describe free giveaways in direct-mail pieces. They were called "freemiums" because they were given to everyone who received the piece (think address labels), as opposed to "premiums", which were only given to customers who purchased a subscription (think Sports Illustrated sneaker phone).
Not sure how to integrate this into the entry, but it seems worth mentioning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.145.93 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemiums and Magazines 

message: The link that's supposed to be a source to this statement has died. Considering how large and popular Facebook is, I think it's pretty vital to have a working link for such claims, or it should be removed altogether. 85.81.86.44 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Facebook and Freemium

message: How is this different from normal shareware products? 89.14.198.9 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a new name for an old idea.  "Shareware" is out, "freemium" is in.  "Shareware", however, has a more limited connotation, mainly just involving software.  "Freemium" can also refer to services on the web... which in a technical sense, is also software, it's just software that you're using over the web, rather than actually possessing the software.  "Freemium" probably would have been a more accurate term from the beginning, but it was invented more recently and just "took off" in the past year or so.  Sometimes I think "they" feel a need to invent new words for the same or similar things every now and then, just so those of us who have been around awhile can feel older and more out-of-touch.  Sort of like, before 2010, if a politician did something that made him/her "look bad", that's what the media said:  It looks bad, or it's "bad public relations."  Now, however, it's "bad optics."  Same wine, new bottle.  Neutron (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

text: This section is a few years old, but further clarification may be needed.  "Shareware" was a distribution model for software, primarily in the pre-internet days, although I believe that it is still in limited use.  In lieu of convincing major software publishing houses to package a developer's product (especially a small, unknown developer) the developer would "share" it via online bulletin boards, or other means, and ask users who liked the product to voluntarily register and send in a donation to help offset the development costs.  In some cases, but not all, developers would incentivize such registration by offering a premium version of the product, or paper manuals, or some other item of value.  The name came from the fact that developers would often ask users to "share" the basic program with others, and provided a "license" allowing this.  Terms of the license usually required that only the original program, the license, and other files that came with the program could be shared, not the premium items, and that the person sharing it could not charge for the software, although a small "disc copying" fee was sometimes permitted.  This is not quite the same as "freemium" products, where the files for the software are obtained exclusively through approved sources (such as app stores or the web sites of the various companies involved).  For comparison, one example of a "freemium" game is "The Simpsons Tapped Out" where players use two currencies within the game.  One currency is "dollars" which are earned in-game, are plentiful, and are used for common items; and the other currency is "donuts" which can be earned, albeit very slowly, but can also be purchased using real money.  Donuts can be used to speed up tasks, and to purchase certain exclusive "premium" items.  Players who do not purchase donuts can save the free donuts they earn until they have enough to purchase any item that is available, but they will never be able to earn enough donuts to purchase all of the available items, given that many items are released on a limited-time basis and the player would need to have saved donuts for quite some time before the item was even announced in order to have enough donuts to purchase it -- meanwhile passing on other limited-time items.  The player who does choose to purchase donuts can collect every item he or she desires, with the possible exception of limited-time items that were released before that player started playing the game.  As an alternative to traditional software distribution models, both "shareware" and "freemium" distribution have been used for games, utilities, business software, etc.  Etamni (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it Shareware? 

message: Both deal with the same or at least a very similar business model and it would propably be a good idea to closely link the two articles, or combine them. As far as I can see, the "freemium" moniker is applicable to all types of services while "free-to-play" is the same, just only for games.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.110.95.2 (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemium and free-to-play 

message: I made two edits removing material. The editor who added it asked me about it on my talk page, so I'm bringing the conversation here. The two edits I made are here and here.
There were a couple of reasons for removing the material. One is that the editor who added it was also the author of the material referenced, which looks like a conflict of interest. That doesn't always mean the material shouldn't be added, however, and I appreciate the author's being up front about their identity. The main issue for me is that SSRN papers are not really published, although Wikipedia sometimes treats them as if they were. Unless there's something else behind these specific SSRN papers (for instance, they've been accepted for publication, or they're part of some institution's series maybe, or something), I feel the need to be treated as if self-published, which makes them not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. SO, I still lean against including this material, but others can discuss it. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pujol analysis 

message: Hi Cretog8 (and the Wikipedia community): thanks for proofreading articles to keep this site great. One initial comment was to wait for the publication of the related book to post or discuss, it happened a few days ago so taking the chance to post an update. As background, I'm a 15-year tech industry veteran and left my day job a year ago to write a book about "free vs. paid" business models. Despite an academic curriculum, I have no PhD at the moment; I am a practitioner (was part of MySQL for 6 years, among other companies). You can find more info on my web site. As for references, the book just became available. You can find a description here and here (Amazon page still being built as I write this), and is the result of a year of research on top of my practitioner's experience. The book has been fortunate to receive 12 early reviews by relevant industry professionals, entrepreneurs and scholars (you can read them on the links above). The point that SSRN papers are not generally considered "published scholarly papers" is fair. I am currently not pursuing having them published in an academic journal, but happy to debate the substance with anyone. 
BTW: I am willing to make the book file viewable to any verified Wikipedia editor (you'll need to provide a Gmail account), or I can also make the book available at half price to those interested in the physical copy. If so please send me an email to "info at my website domain". Hope that helps. Npujol, March 18 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npujol (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've deleted this section entirely as the examples cited do little to illustrate the concept and appear to be presented merely as pathetic advertising. If it's worth giving examples at all - which it hardly is - then I'd suggested using something that is genuinely well-known, e.g. DropBox. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: I see listed in examples Office 2010 for 30 days. The definition of freemium is that the product is free and the premium service on top of it, such as extra gold for your character which buys you more stuff, costs money. Office 2010 for 30 days isn't freemium because you get everything for a limited amount of time to try it and then have to pay for everything.
If it was freemium you could use these basic functions for as long as you want but you have to pay every time you use clip art or something like that. It would be freemium because the clip art would be the premium your paying for and until you need that you can continue using the product.
Office 2010 for 30 days is trialware because you try it for a while but then have to buy it. (also known as shareware but I like the word trialware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialware). tumaru 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but my opinion is WP:OR. The source calls it freemium, so until a contra-source is found.... — Safety Cap (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemium isn't a trial run 

message: it's really pat of the main subject, not a subject by itself  DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Free tier (business model)]] 

message: I suggest a link to bait-and-switch and an explanation of similarities and differences between these two business models.  The similarity is that both models "bait" a prospective buyer by offering a product at a substantially discounted price or for free hoping that he/she will "switch" to a more expensive product.  The main difference seems to be in the transaction cost incurred by the buyer to acquire the "bait" version of the product - it is very low or none in the freemium model, and relatively high in the bait-and-switch model.  For example, it costs next to nothing to download a "free" app and then learn that it is a "trial" or a "lite" version, and a full version requires a payment.  However it costs time, effort, and money to go to a brick-and-mortar store only to learn that the "bait" product is not available and a more expensive "switch" product is being offered instead.  This high transaction or "sunk" cost is what differentiates bait-and-switch from freemium.  Research in behavioral economics (cf. Kahnemann sunk cost fallacy article on Wiki) shows that customers are more likely to spend more money if they have already incurred substantial "sunk" cost.  With this in mind, characterizing the Pay2Win games as a variant of the freemium model is somewhat misleading, because the high transaction cost (time spending playing the initial part of the game) makes this model more similar to bait-and-switch.  Please also note that the bait-and-switch models may require relatively low transaction costs, for example making a phone call to "confirm" a web order, which subjects the caller to an aggressive sales pitch, which is comparable to that incurred in Pay2Win but still higher than in the ideal freemium model.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.25.251 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to bait and switch 

message: # Freemium games have come under criticism from players and critics. (who)?
# The logical link is missing from "giving an advantage to players who pay more money" to "An example of this is Smurfs' Village"; As of the last section edit, the definition of the Pay2Win "willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free" means content only available for paying (as opposed to a long grind).
# It then goes to pinning the blame for the children overspending on the app instead of the lax app store policy. The 15 minutes window could be abused to buy any number of nonfreemium apps, so it should be on the app store article, not here. Also is pinning the problem to that particular app.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostburguer (talk • contribs) 14:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree entirely, the Smurfs game was not a good example of when paying real money gave any players an advantage over skilled players, as the sentence preceding it would lead you to think. The extra description of the App Store fiasco also did not logically fit either. I believe that entire segment about the Smurfs game/App Store should be replaced with a better example (such as an online game that allows you to buy direct upgrades in a player-vs-player environment), or at the very least be moved to a second paragraph- but the App Store included paid games as well so I don't think it's a direct criticism of the Freemium model. Jblasco3 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section is of extreme low quality 

message: One variation of the freemium model is used by not-for-profit organizations in the social enterprise or social innovation business model.
In this case, the feature-limited free tier of software is provided to an organization as a service to promote social transformation. 
Paid tiers with premium features are also available. The revenue stream from the premium tiers is then used to sustain the nonprofit business in order to continue to provide free tiers for all organizations interested in using the software as a service (SaaS). This type of SaaS enterprise has therefore coined the term Software as a Profound Service (SaaPS) as it seeks to change the world for the better through enabling software. http://www.ourprayercenter.com/AboutUs.aspx --BlueMonkeySailing (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerging Trends 

message: Some games such as pokemon shuffle limits the gameplay by having a "counter" (as hearts) system of number of stages you can play (including stages you've already completed). If it is below a certain amount (such as 5), it will slowly regenerate based on the real time clock (like 30 minutes). If that counter is exhausted, the player have to either pay or wait till it goes to at least 1. To speed up this timer to allow continuous gameplay, you have to pay to raise that counter to continue playing.Joeleoj123 (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What category does this go to,