[teiferer]

So like Windows then? Cause a free alternative exists?

Or farmers markets? Cause you can just grow all those crops for free yourself.

Or carpenters? Just get some tools, do your home renovations for free.

Or sex workers? Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free.

Oh, they are differences between the free and the pay options? The occupy different niches in the marketplace? You don't say. Maybe they are not scams after all, just cater to different tastes.

(I also prefer lichess over chess.com but that doesn't mean I think this is a reasonable argument.)

[heap_perms]

A better analogy: imagine if someone built a public water fountain, then chess.com set up next to it selling the exact same water for $100/year while limiting the public fountain to 1 cup per day through lobbying. Then they sponsored all the popular hydration influencers to only drink their bottled water on camera.

> Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free.

Not at the same convenience, can you ;) So they are selling convenience. Chess.com isn't selling convenience - both platforms are websites you access identically. They're not offering portability or solving a distribution problem. They're artificially limiting a digital service that costs them essentially nothing to provide unlimited access to.

[monkey_monkey]

How, specifically, are chess.com limiting anyone using lichess?

[teiferer]

> that costs them essentially nothing

If you know how to run such a platform for free, then I'm sure you could sell your knowledge for a lot of money. And the company running chess.com would be your highest paying customer.

In other words, I think you are underestimating the effort. Just ask the lichess guys.