At the time of this writing, all of the comments here are focused on content, but I want to touch on the author's bit about software: > It’s not just Bloomberg and media — it’s software too. I used to write everything in Ulysses, a syncing Markdown editor for OS X and iOS. I paid $70 to buy the apps, but then the company switched to a $40 a year annual subscription, and as the dozens of angry reviews and comments ill…
In the EU, the GDPR will make data takeout APIs (or some guy exporting as CSV and mailing it to you) mandatory.
Subscription Hell
141–150 of 610 posts
Re: Subscription Hell
#142I am not sure why it is so fundamentally difficult for publications to understand what people want. The issue many people, myself included, have with subscriptions are that you pay $x / month whether or not you read that month's product. And whether or not you read every article or just one. So for me, as a consumer, my "price per article" goes from small to literally infinity (pay but read zero articles). Now the pa…
Re: Subscription Hell
#143Imagine if back in the day Rails Casts was $3 an episode instead of $20 per month for unlimited monthly access.
Suddenly if you wanted to learn Rails, you'd end up watching many dozens or hundreds of 5-10 minute videos for $3 a pop. You would constantly feel like you're being nickel and dimed. It's hard enough to get someone to buy from you once, but expecting someone to make dozens or hundreds of small transactions would be madness.
It creates a really high pressure scammy feel to it IMO.
Don't you feel the same way?
Re: Subscription Hell
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is my issue with most subscriptions too. The price has to be set based on the average use, which makes it really expensive for the infrequent user (and ultimately this means less conversions, yet nobody seems to care about this?!). I've had the same gripe with games for years. I stopped paying for Xbox live and World of Warcraft because they're the same - if I only played for a few hours in a month, I've paid ov…
This is one of the underappreciated benefits of ads: infrequent or freeloading users were subsidized by the users that converted. Every day you are being subsidized by users that don't use adblockers. Eventually this will end and you'll be left with no option but to complain about spending money, but what did anyone expect? Free shit forever?
I guess I'm a subsidiser; I don't use an ad blocker (for many reasons). I'm also slightly of the opinion that people using ad-blockers have made things worse for those that don't :(
I don't mind ads - I don't even mind advertises tracking some things to give me more relevant ads (heck, I'd tell them what I like to get more relevant ads).. I do mind obtrusive and noisy ads, and the security risks that tend to come with them (and other third party content) being slapped on every site with no thought though; and for some content I would pay to a reasonable fee to remove them.
Re: Subscription Hell
#145I am not sure why it is so fundamentally difficult for publications to understand what people want. The issue many people, myself included, have with subscriptions are that you pay $x / month whether or not you read that month's product. And whether or not you read every article or just one. So for me, as a consumer, my "price per article" goes from small to literally infinity (pay but read zero articles). Now the pa…
I don't think that model will work, honestly. There's friction anytime you ask someone to spend anything, even if the price is de minimis. Look what happens whenever a city adopts a $0.05 plastic bag tax. When Washington DC did it, plastic bag use dropped by 50% - 70%. I'd see people that just spent $30 bucks at the store with their arms overflowing with stuff rather than pay that extra nickel. I'd expect prompting u…
The example that gives me a little bit of optimism in the long run is power: people don't really have a problem with the fact that their power bill is pay-per-use, and if it discourages them from unduly wasting power, all the better.
But the problem you describe is still significant: people are _already_ used to that dynamic for electricity, and it's not clear to me how to get over the hump where they'd treat micro transactions for publishing in the way you describe. Most people aren't remotely rational enough to realize on their own that stressing over each minuscule payment has a cost of its own and coming up with a better strategy for handling it. (In the electricity example, this is the difference between 1) calculating the power usage of each device in your house and considering whether you want to pay a few cents before flicking that light switch or 2) conserve in common sense ways and adjust if necessary based on your monthly bill.)
> When Washington DC did it, plastic bag use dropped by 50% - 70%. I'd see people that just spent $30 bucks at the store with their arms overflowing with stuff rather than pay that extra nickel.
Case in point... This may be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. My city has had a ten cent bag tax for a long time now, and the way everyone reacts is 1) carry it in your hand if it's one or two small things, 2) pay a freaking dime if you have too much stuff and be slightly more likely to remember your reusable bag next time.
Re: Subscription Hell
#146Honestly, the subscription model is more honest than a one time purchase pyramid scheme. Software changes over time. It has to, new operating systems, libraries and hardware dictate forward maintenance costs, nevermind bugs and security flaws.
Re: Subscription Hell
#147I wish I could just pay $x/mo for unlimited access to all media. It would get distributed to content creators proportionally based on my time using websites, music, videos, and games. No ads or subscriptions. I can't imagine how such a system would be implemented though. And I'm sure there would be new unintended consequences with such an incentive structure. But something like that would be nice!
Re: Subscription Hell
#148I am not sure why it is so fundamentally difficult for publications to understand what people want. The issue many people, myself included, have with subscriptions are that you pay $x / month whether or not you read that month's product. And whether or not you read every article or just one. So for me, as a consumer, my "price per article" goes from small to literally infinity (pay but read zero articles). Now the pa…
It's worth it to me to avoid managing dozens of separate logins for every site.
Re: Subscription Hell
#149At the time of this writing, all of the comments here are focused on content, but I want to touch on the author's bit about software: > It’s not just Bloomberg and media — it’s software too. I used to write everything in Ulysses, a syncing Markdown editor for OS X and iOS. I paid $70 to buy the apps, but then the company switched to a $40 a year annual subscription, and as the dozens of angry reviews and comments ill…
"that price is vastly out of proportion from the cost of providing the software"
That's just an unfounded assumption by the author. He says he knows this, even though he doesn't know how many developers are working on it, what they get paid, how much time each release takes, how large the code base is, or how many users the product has. Essentially, he has made up a cost in his head, and decided that the costs must be less than his fantasy. For all we know, he's one of 2 users, and the cost for keeping his editor available is $100k/yr/user.
This also completely ignores the fact that prices for software aren't generally set using cost plus pricing.
Re: Subscription Hell
#150I wish I could just pay $x/mo for unlimited access to all media. It would get distributed to content creators proportionally based on my time using websites, music, videos, and games. No ads or subscriptions. I can't imagine how such a system would be implemented though. And I'm sure there would be new unintended consequences with such an incentive structure. But something like that would be nice!