I wasn't defining Freemium; just using it as a jumping off point for talking about social good (because the blog author mentioned "do good" and "do well").
I'm concerned about social good, for the reasons pg discusses (morale, confidence, people want to help you). It feels good to do good. That's my topic. Freemium is not my topic.
I agree that Freemium could be used by a "totally ruthless business person" - but that explicitly isn't the case I was talking about (though evidently not sufficiently explicit).
Therefore, you aren't addressing the part of my comment that I'm interested in - that's because you saw it as trying to define Freemium in a way you disagree with. Maybe I could have been clearer that I wasn't defining Freemium. Actually, I consciously chose the qualification "But for selling software" to distinguish my subject from Freemium - I happily concede that this qualification may have been inadequate to the purpose. Maybe also I shouldn't post that in a comment on an article about Freemium - but the article also was about doing good and doing well, so there is a relation - though clearly not the one you expected. BTW what you say about Freemium seems pretty reasonably to me from my wider reading, although I don't take a position on what it is or isn't; I'm not arguing that.
At the moment, the issue of doing good is very important to me, personally, and I can't afford to let it slip away. If my topic wasn't wasn't so important to me, I would happily switch to your topic (definition of Freemium) and discuss that.
PS: That also explains why you give advise me to be careful when I start describing or defining what something really means or what it's benefits are - it's because you thought I was doing that. I wasn't.
I'm concerned about social good, for the reasons pg discusses (morale, confidence, people want to help you). It feels good to do good. That's my topic. Freemium is not my topic.
I agree that Freemium could be used by a "totally ruthless business person" - but that explicitly isn't the case I was talking about (though evidently not sufficiently explicit).
Therefore, you aren't addressing the part of my comment that I'm interested in - that's because you saw it as trying to define Freemium in a way you disagree with. Maybe I could have been clearer that I wasn't defining Freemium. Actually, I consciously chose the qualification "But for selling software" to distinguish my subject from Freemium - I happily concede that this qualification may have been inadequate to the purpose. Maybe also I shouldn't post that in a comment on an article about Freemium - but the article also was about doing good and doing well, so there is a relation - though clearly not the one you expected. BTW what you say about Freemium seems pretty reasonably to me from my wider reading, although I don't take a position on what it is or isn't; I'm not arguing that.
At the moment, the issue of doing good is very important to me, personally, and I can't afford to let it slip away. If my topic wasn't wasn't so important to me, I would happily switch to your topic (definition of Freemium) and discuss that.
PS: That also explains why you give advise me to be careful when I start describing or defining what something really means or what it's benefits are - it's because you thought I was doing that. I wasn't.