“But the current status, I think, is problematic.”

For whom, exactly? I guess it’s problematic for people who can’t afford to pay for the service, but this is true for any given service or product which one or more people may be unable to afford. However, there are many things which even wealthy people cannot “afford” – a house on the moon, say – and we don’t regard that as problematic because such things are not regarded as essential. Food, water, shelter and so on are essential. As humanity becomes wealthier, access to communication networks such as the internet is becoming essential. But access to app.net specifically? I’m not so sure.

It’s not really clear what app.net could do here. They could address your issues around internationalisation, rewrite their terms and conditions, and set up a system of anonymous payments. But doing this costs money, and the only way to offset that cost would be to increase the price of an app.net account, thus excluding even more people. They certainly can’t address all of those issues *and* reduce or eliminate their pricing, without compromising on the fundamental principle of app.net – that it’s funded by the users rather than by advertisers.

The problem here isn’t that app.net’s prices are too high, it’s that there are some people who don’t have enough money to pay those prices. The solution is to enlarge the wealth and prosperity of those people (and once it’s clear that there’s a large number of paying customers who want a localised version of app.net, you can bet that the app.net developers will start catering to that market). This is a problem which is probably outside the scope of the app.net project.