I wonder if people would be so opposed to the monetization strategy if he wasn't targeting low-income families? If he was targeting programmer parents to teach their kids, and charging them, would it be bad? I think it's safe to say most gainfully employed programmers could afford this.
We are not "targeting low-income families"! We have 25,000+ paying Treehouse Students and almost zero are from that group. This is a simple pilot program in one high school with kids that are at-risk.
If the pilot is successful, then the school districts will decide if they want to pay for Treehouse at around $9/mo per Student.
Well the pilot program is what seems to be drawing the most ire, and that's the one I was referring to. I'm not debating either side of the argument and I believe in charging for a good product. I was just asking a question because I was curious about the thought process of some of the comments.
Comments
I wonder if people would be so opposed to the monetization strategy if he wasn't targeting low-income families? If he was targeting programmer parents to teach their kids, and charging them, would it be bad? I think it's safe to say most gainfully employed programmers could afford this.
We are not "targeting low-income families"! We have 25,000+ paying Treehouse Students and almost zero are from that group. This is a simple pilot program in one high school with kids that are at-risk.
If the pilot is successful, then the school districts will decide if they want to pay for Treehouse at around $9/mo per Student.
Well the pilot program is what seems to be drawing the most ire, and that's the one I was referring to. I'm not debating either side of the argument and I believe in charging for a good product. I was just asking a question because I was curious about the thought process of some of the comments.