I understand your concern and have made the requested changes.

The upgrade was hastily put and the current limit is 3 not just the one. And I have already increased the limit to 50 and submitted it to the store.

A new upgrade has already been submitted but it'll take the dev team a day or two to give it the green light and roll out the new version.

Seems like people don't even want to make a one-time contribution, I will be discontinuing the support and will be not replying to threads after the next update.

Yeah makes sense

You too!

I am very sorry to hear that, can I know the Firefox version you're using, and whether you're over the limit (watched more than 50 ads)?

Please update the version to 2.0 and it will remove the constant paywall mechanism.

Can you uninstall and reinstall the extension?

Many solutions are, and the most famous adblocker uBlock (not Original) now AdBlock Plus is a part of "Acceptable Ads Program" and earns millions in annual revenue.

But I understand where are you coming from. The hard paywall was removed in the last update.

For maintenance and consistent updates, a one-time contribution will go a long way.

Please read the announcement if you're interested to know why there was a need to turn to an open-core model.

Also, you're correct, that open-source project still works for the majority. Not for everyone as YouTube is testing geo-fenced patches. Soon, that version will stop working.

You're free to modify the source to make it work but no further updates will be pushed.

The upcoming 2.0 after listening to the customers will be an opt-in model (not a paywall).

You do understand that I have left the extension open-source by purpose, right?

The source is FREE (and will be), constantly maintaining it is a chore and thus a small one-time paywall and if you are not satisfied with the monetization decision, you're happy to downgrade; it just won't receive further updates. I believe that's a fair compromise.

I had a donation page for a month, but as you're an intellectual, you'd already know if people contributed or not.

It's currently priced at 5.99$ as a one-time lifetime license fee, is that a deal-breaker for you or you'd want a lower price, or paying is completely out of the question?

I hope you understand how much time and energy it takes to maintain something like this where YouTube is actively trying to shut out everything for such a large user base while trying to work >80 hours on your own thing.

It's not technically bait-and-switch as if you are not satisfied with the monetization decision, you're happy to downgrade the version to 1.3 as I won't take anything down, it just won't be maintained. I think that is fair.

Most skippers don't work, and if they do, I would be happy to share them.

You're on point about reviews, a few of them rubbed me the wrong way but you're absolutely right, a review is an opinion.

Sad to see YOU go. Many are happy to pay a cup of joe to continue using this extension forever ;)

You using an open-source extension for not paying YouTube Premium for 13$/mo is not scummy but a developer investing his time to keep the extension updated for a month and now asking a one-time measly 5$ for life is scummy?

It's currently priced at 5.99$ as a one-time lifetime license fee with guaranteed non-stop support for at least 12 months. That's 167.88$ for YouTube Premium, is that still a deal-breaker for you?

The license requires that Modifications (as defined in Section 1.10 of the license) must be licensed under the MPL and made available to anyone to whom you distribute the Source Code. However, new files containing no MPL-licensed code are not Modifications, and therefore do not need to be distributed under the terms of the MPL, even if you create a Larger Work (as defined in Section 1.7) by using, compiling, or distributing the non-MPL files together with MPL-licensed files. This allows, for example, programs using MPL-licensed code to be statically linked to and distributed as part of a larger proprietary piece of software, which would not generally be possible under the terms of stronger copyleft licenses. (verbatim from https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/)

Edit: Don't leave bad reviews on technicals if you are not sure