[Goldfinger]

Get in while you can now guys, because the founder just announced they'll be debuting a paid premium service next month. Hopefully this doesn't restrict any current features.

You knew they were gonna cash in sooner or later.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media...th-n230121

[eradicator]

hmm, i can keep using the same basic service for free, or I can pay more to get recommendations for local bars and restaurants. tough decision? not really.

[PastTense]

Another article:

Quote:

Rad (the CEO) wouldn’t give me specifics but hinted that one of the new features will focus on travel and could help Tinder move into markets beyond dating. Currently location based, Tinder lets you swipe though an endless stream of photos of people looking to meet up — but only the city you’re currently in. The new premium service will likely let users break away from location limits and expand their Tinder reach. “We are adding features users have been begging us for,” said Rad. “They will offer so much value we think users are willing to pay for them.”

Rad says there will be no changes to the current, free Tinder app. Tinder has been growing like crazy. Rad won’t comment on user numbers but did say that people now swipe through 1.2 billion Tinder profiles a day — that’s billion with a “B.” He also says that each day Tinder makes more than 15 million matches.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenberton...-november/

So you do the math and divide 1.2 billion by 15 million that is 80 swipes per match. While that could be and average of 40 swipes by each man and 40 swipes by each woman to get a match it is probably much more lopsided with the men doing a lot more swipes.

[Seth_Rose]

Good for them, I'm sure they're going to make a ton of $$$.

Guys are willing to pay top dollar to get laid, so for an app like Tinder which is predicated on hookups they think: Paid Membership = Getting Laid. I don't see any possibility of many girls paying for a premium membership when they have dozens of guys messaging them in the first place.

[Native Baltimoron]

(10-23-2014 04:20 PM)PastTense Wrote:  

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenberton...-november/

So you do the math and divide 1.2 billion by 15 million that is 80 swipes per match. While that could be and average of 40 swipes by each man and 40 swipes by each woman to get a match it is probably much more lopsided with the men doing a lot more swipes.

The only feature he mentioned can be accomplished with a free GPS-spoofing app, so unless they've got some other goodies to offer the guys with more money than sense, I am skeptical that this cash-in will be all that profitable.

[Roardog]

Haha, it's way more lopsided than that. I got on a girls Tinder the other day and did a bit of swiping and had over 200 matches in the blink of an eye.

I doubt they'll start charging for what is now free, the backlash would be too big and they'd lose too much of their user base. Plus there is too much competition from others apps that are free like OKC and POF.

[Cattle Rustler]

Will it at least get rid of the hooker bots?

[LouEvilSlugger]

A premium tinder would just reaffirm my intention to quit online dating altogether to focus on daygame and social circle game.

[Brodiaga]

It would be nice if they could send alerts when a match is within 1 mile radius let's say, or if I could search for matches who are within a mile from me at the moment. Would I pay for it, though? I don't know, maybe $1/month.

[kaotic]

(10-23-2014 06:07 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

It would be nice if they could send alerts when a match is within 1 mile radius let's say, or if I could search for matches who are within a mile from me at the moment. Would I pay for it, though? I don't know, maybe $1/month.

Don't you know !? That's called potential rape !

[Brodiaga]

(10-23-2014 06:46 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Don't you know !? That's called potential rape !

Everything is called rape these days, so who cares.

[monster]

Nothing wrong with paying a little bit for a service like this. It can be a good return on investment. I've paid for SA and got a bunch of lays.

In a sense, paying weeds out a lot of competition cause they're just plain ol' cheap asses.

[slothpiece]

Is there an Android version of something like this mass liker: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tinderoi...8990?mt=8? I can't use bluestacks because I'm still on old XP.

[Benoit]

(10-23-2014 05:09 PM)Roardog Wrote:  

I doubt they'll start charging for what is now free, the backlash would be too big and they'd lose too much of their user base. Plus there is too much competition from others apps that are free like OKC and POF.

Never underestimate the thirst of the average guy.

OKC and POF both already offer paid upgrades, and Tinder will be able to take payments via the app stores without you giving them your personal details.

[Basil Ransom]

I don't get this braggadocio about not paying. Are you homeless too? "Nah man, I ain't paying for my own place just so I have a place to fuck a girl in a proper bed. That's beta."

I would applaud a "cover fee" if it was levied only on men and was effective in getting paying men more matches. Would be interesting to see how they do something like that without running afoul of antidiscrimination laws. Seeking Arrangement, for instance, doesn't do it by sex but by a self-chosen 'baby/daddy or mama' distinction.

Would be funny if they did some devious shit like only showing men fatties if they don't become a paying member.

• If user is male and non-paying, show only females whom other men swipe right on 20% of the time or less.

[ONE A DAY]

I could be a way to get rid of the hooker bots...

[Roardog]

(10-24-2014 11:46 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

• If user is male and non-paying, show only females whom other men swipe right on 20% of the time or less.

No profile like that exists on Tinder as pretty much every guy swipes right to everything.

[Foolsgo1d]

You're lying to yourselves if you think a paid fee will increase your chances on something like Tinder. Men pay to meet women and they have a lot of income to waste on this.

Women have it easy so there is no incentive for them to pay. It will be lopsided for sure.

[BallsDeep]

(10-24-2014 11:46 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

I would applaud a "cover fee" if it was levied only on men and was effective in getting paying men more matches. Would be interesting to see how they do something like that without running afoul of antidiscrimination laws. Seeking Arrangement, for instance, doesn't do it by sex but by a self-chosen 'baby/daddy or mama' distinction.

The international cupid sites do it by only allowing communication between two members if one of the members has a paid subscription. It is assumed that only men are paying members.

[N°6]

(10-25-2014 07:46 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

You're lying to yourselves if you think a paid fee will increase your chances on something like Tinder. Men pay to meet women and they have a lot of income to waste on this.

Women have it easy so there is no incentive for them to pay. It will be lopsided for sure.

If men have to pay and women stay on tinder for free, men will be even more desperate to get some action before their membership expires while women could afford to waste time and jump on the cock carousel when they got the urge. In other words, like the average web based pay site.

[samsamsam]

Seems like Tinder Plus is going to charge more for people over 30.

For the privilege of undoing the damage of an itchy Tinder finger, a.k.a. a left swipe, users can sign up for Tinder Plus for the price of $9.99 a month -- that is, if they're under 30 years old.

The 30-and-over crowd will have to pony up $19.99 per month for the service, which also allows subscribers to use a passport feature and swipe with potential matches around the world. (Or if you look at it another way, it's just another opportunity to be rejected by more people.)

"Younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained, and need a lower price to pull the trigger," Rosette Pambakian, vice president of corporate communications at Tinder, told ABC News in an email.

After testing Tinder Plus in several countries, Pambakian said the tiered subscription model was created "based on a combination of factors, including what we've learned through our testing, and we've found that these price points were adopted very well by certain age demographics."

Tinder users who don't subscribe will also have to start carefully determining who is worthy of a right swipe. The app will begin placing limits on how many people a free user can right-swipe.

Explaining why you just can't like everyone, a Tinder blog post today said, "The validity of the swipe is core to the Tinder experience. Tinder works best when swipes are genuine reflections of a user's desire to connect."

[OregonToSoCal]

(03-03-2015 04:17 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Seems like Tinder Plus is going to charge more for people over 30.

"Younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained, and need a lower price to pull the trigger," Rosette Pambakian, vice president of corporate communications at Tinder, told ABC News in an email.

It's a potential win/win situation for some of us. It encourages us to lie about our age AND save money.

[Atlantic]

I think its a good move bringing in a swipe limiter.
This might clean up the app a bit and increases the value of a match (if girls are limited also in right swipes).
Less time wasting and less guys spamming every girl.

[ElJefe]

Since girls swipe right on average every seventh guy, this will reduce her potential matches to 10 a day. Hottest chicks probably only swipe right a fraction of that. The only question is, how will tinder determine your daily allotment of swipes. If you only get trash or will you have a chance to pick some hotties