Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021) • Hacker News Board

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#311

Post by TrueSlacker0 » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:00 PM UTC

skeeter2020 wrote: post #289

Brian_K_White wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I sold furniture, the designs and manufacturing processes and materials usage all undergo continuous iteration, yet when I sell you your chair, you don't have to keep paying me forever to keep using it. Yes, you also don't get updates to it. That is actually perfectly fine for countless bits of software. I have 30 year old software, and it still does it's original job just fine, if I happen to be ok with all it's…

If you sold furniture you would also sell a heck of a lot more of it on very low, very long payment plans. Even more extreme with cars, resulting in leases that are essentially long term rentals or "subscriptions"

But you now own the product at the end of the term.

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#312

Post by lewisjoe » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:02 PM UTC

This boils down to simple economics. Most softwares built by startups run over the cloud (which incur recurring costs to the startup) and most softwares are not just a one-time delivered unit like a physical object. They need patches and continuous improvements, which means it needs a supply of human intellect (which is again a recurring cost in terms of salaries)

The challenge is how would you reconcile this underlying costs with a one-time-payment? It's a tougher problem than it seems, if yoy include other variables in the equation like inflation, volatile nature of softwares , etc.

Nonetheless, this has to be solved. I strongly believe a simple pricing model that makes instant sense - is an important part of the UX. And a one-time payment like buying a physical product is the simplest of all.

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#313

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:02 PM UTC

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #228

ekianjo wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I pay for the thing it allows me to do Why can't software ever be "finished" or "sufficient" to meet your needs? I don't see the point of having software is updated day after day, month after month, if I am not interested in the new features they bring.

Operating systems are starting to make that impossible. I used to use an old version of Quicken for Mac (this was back in the MacOS 10.2 days). It was "finished" in that it did absolutely everything I needed and there were no bugs that affected me. As time marched on, Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel which was fine because they had technology (Rosetta) which allowed me to run PowerPC applications. Then they dropp…

Would you consider running an emulator to keep using the original software?

In gaming this has become mainstream as GOG and Steam now leverage DOSBox for this purpose.

Personally I think vendors beyond a certain size should be regulated so they must maintain BC for some minimum period like 20y. Regressions should incur fines unless it's proven they are required for security fixes.

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#314

Post by parkingrift » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:02 PM UTC

dangus wrote: post #301

parkingrift wrote: post #129

You can throw absolutely all of the blame on MBA and finance culture. Businesses routinely sell for 7-20x annual recurring revenue. However, non-recurring revenue is worth maybe 2-3x. It’s the same story with raising funds. If you need capital you can raise substantially more for substantially less if you have recurring revenue. It would be more valuable for a business owner to take a $1M non-recurring revenue busine…

The thing you haven’t addressed is why this is asinine. I don’t think it’s asinine! It makes logical sense to me that recurring revenue is more valuable than non-recurring revenue.

I understand the why, and still completely disagree with the base reasoning. I was part of a group that made a $10M acquisition of a software company with consistent $7M in annual sales. We converted that to $4.5M in recurring revenue and sold it for $30 million 3.5 years later. I was on the executive team that flipped the business.

And I find the whole thing disturbingly ridiculous. Your examples are pretty divorced from reality. What’s the fundamental difference between consistent annual sales and recurring revenue? Of course in your example the recurring revenue would be worth more, but that’s not an example from reality.

At the end of the day there is finite consumer spending. Companies aren’t really making more money by shifting to recurring revenue. They’re just increasing their value because finance bros say it’s the way to increase your value.

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#315

Post by jbluepolarbear » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:03 PM UTC

LVB wrote: post #172

yourMadness wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you use a service that converts subscriptions into one time purchases at 20x the yearly subscription cost?

Jetbrains’ perpetual licenses are similar to this. https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207240845-What...

I like Jetbrains. And this is one of the nice things about their license. I subscribe and feel that it’s a worthwhile cost as they constantly add new features and improve features/address bugs frequently. But having the option to stop my subscription and still having continued access is a nice bonus.

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#316

Post by chrisandchris » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:04 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #307

chrisandchris wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of the problem is that most of these startups simply have too much overhead to offer their product for free or cheap. I think that is not the issue. The issue is having a physical product that is tied to a subscription which could also be a one-time fee. Like a subscription for your dorbell - just why?

> Like a subscription for your dorbell - just why? Servers (and the staff to maintain them) have an ongoing cost. Human labor is also a pesky subscription.

Sure, yes, I agree. But why design a thing that way? Is there really no other way? What if the company goes down, now you have a very expensive useless doorbell you even paid for a long time.

And it's not like there's much new functionality one can put in a doorbell. I'm not sure the server really costs that much each month.

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#317

Post by jbluepolarbear » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:07 PM UTC

worthless-trash wrote: post #247

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Operating systems are starting to make that impossible. I used to use an old version of Quicken for Mac (this was back in the MacOS 10.2 days). It was "finished" in that it did absolutely everything I needed and there were no bugs that affected me. As time marched on, Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel which was fine because they had technology (Rosetta) which allowed me to run PowerPC applications. Then they dropp…

No, shitty operating systems make that impossible.

What’s an operating system that makes it possible?

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#318

Post by lupire » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:09 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #307

chrisandchris wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of the problem is that most of these startups simply have too much overhead to offer their product for free or cheap. I think that is not the issue. The issue is having a physical product that is tied to a subscription which could also be a one-time fee. Like a subscription for your dorbell - just why?

> Like a subscription for your dorbell - just why? Servers (and the staff to maintain them) have an ongoing cost. Human labor is also a pesky subscription.

Yes that's the standard BS excuse.

Pay a nickel for server time and charge a dollar.

Also the question of why the servers are needed at all is often unanswered.

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#319

Post by jbluepolarbear » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:10 PM UTC

willjp wrote: post #276

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't software like a music player or playing podcast function perfectly fine w9thout updates for 10 years. We had same audio formats for 10 years, and same OS audio API.

This is my favourite model. Say you are an illustrator, you purchase photoshop once for 900$ and you update again when the features are compelling. Maybe every 5 years? These are not industries where people make programmer wages. Combining all of the required software costs is very expensive. Subscriptions more closely match the model/needs of the producer, but they are often quite bad the consumer.

You then need to take assets from a 3rd party and use them in your work. Their files are for a version newer than yours and is not backwards compatible. Are you gonna upgrade then even if there’s no feature you require? This was the main issue with photoshop in my experience and a problem that has disappeared with the subscription model.

Re: Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

#320

Post by fiprofessor » Sat, Jul 30, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

closewith wrote: post #302

fiprofessor wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But very few physical consumer goods are designed to be robust to adversarial or malicious use, and there is no standard of liability for such failures. On the other hand, often in these discussions, people advocate for such a standard for software products. Consider the example of a music player that was mentioned in another comment upstream in this thread. Suppose a company sells music player software that turns ou…

> It's helpful to consider a physical product analogy: imagine the company sold a cassette player instead. Now, let's say that someone designs a malicious tape that is lined with noxious chemicals, which when played in the cassette player causes it to catch on fire and explode. Would anyone regard the cassette maker as liable if this caused someone to die or a house to burn down? With respect, a malicious tape lined…

Should auto-manufacturers be liable for emissions produced by cars that have had their catalytic converters stolen?

Should medicine manufacturers be liable if someone circumvents their tamper-proof seals and laces them with a poison?

Should berry growers be liable if someone inserts needles into foods that are sold at supermarkets?

All of these are crimes that are either widespread or famous from media scares that happened in the past, and thus foreseeable going ahead, but I think liability would still be limited because the resulting harms are caused by a 3rd party criminal act.