Technology

37758 readers

428 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

370

Tinder Now Letting Rizzless Sad Sacks Pay $500/Month to Message People Without Even Matching (futurism.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by UrLogicFails@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If you get a message from someone you never matched with on Tinder, it's not a glitch — it's part of the app's expensive new subscription plan that it teased earlier this year, which allows "power users" to send unsolicited messages to non-matches for the small fee of $499 per month.

That landscape, in fact, is largely populated by apps owned by Tinder's parent company: as Bloomberg notes, Match Group Inc. not only owns the popular swiping app, but also Match.com, OKCupid, Hinge, and The League.

Match Group CEO Bernard Kim referred to Tinder's subscriptions as "low-hanging fruit" meant to compete with other, pricier services, though that was before this $6,000-per-year tier dropped.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Otome-chan@kbin.social 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Every time I see something about tinder it's just worse and worse. why would I want to use it?

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It was good for a while, but yeah, they need to make money somehow and I guess that's how they decided to do it. This one will definitely backfire. The last thing anyone wants is getting dick pics from a sad sack who pays $500/Mo for that privilege. Women are going to leave in droves.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 1 year ago

That's fine. For every woman who leaves, 10 more bots will join, and they'll appreciate the extra attention!

[–] Solarius@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

pretty sure you can't send images on tinder

[–] spizzat2@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

The ladies will be so impressed with just how much 8 is equal to D!

[–] realChem@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago

why would I want to use it?

You wouldn't, but that's fine with Match Group: JP Morgan[^1] are loving this new monetization strategy. If they think they can get more money out of their users they will, the experience and usefulness of their app be damned. Very similar to aggressively monetized mobile games, but extra icky since they're monetizing human relationships.

[^1]: I'm sure other investment firms are pleased as well, but JP Morgan was the firm mentioned in the article

[–] TrustingZebra@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

It's the most used dating app. Logically people think that if a dating app has a lot of users, their chances of finding matches are higher. But it's rigged.