Live data from Hacker News

Subscription fatigue and related musings

morrick.me

121–123 of 123 posts

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#121
The problem with "subscription models" isn't "subscription models" per se, it's greed.

People aren't showing aversion to "subscription vs non-subscription models", they're showing an aversion to greed, and businesses not treating them as a valued customer, but as a resource to be milked until either the resource dries out or the business goes bust.

In the original definition it used to be that a "subscription model" meant a win-win situation for both the user and the business: the business gets some sort of pledge that the customer will continue purchasing the recurring product or service in question because they are a loyal customer, in exchange for extra benefits (typically a discount, or some sort of extra goodies or support).

Now we have the reverse situation: greedy companies treat subscription as their "main" business plan, hoping to milk as much money as ephemerally possible without necessarily valuing their loyal customers, offerring either no non-subscription alternative, or a highly crippled or ridiculous alternative to coerce you into subscribing just to get the "base" product "at least once".

It's become the software equivalent of hardware companies coming up with "bullshit consumables" that serve no real purpose in a device except forcing users to keep paying after a purchase (this is super common in biomed devices!).

People know a greedy model / bullshit service when they see one. As a result, they put off using it as much as they can, and when they finally succumb with a heavy heart and subscribe because they need the "base" product that should have been available without a subscription, they retaliate in other ways that harm the business (e.g. single star reviews, password sharing networks, etc).

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#122
post #97

The article says the author has no solution to propose. I do have a solution to propose. Accept subscriptions, but be very selective about the apps that you use. It's what I do — I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app. And I'd much rather have a few really good apps than a plethora of half-baked ad-ridden garbage. In other words, I don't have "subscription fat…

> I happily pay the subscription fees, because this is the only way to sustainably maintain an app. No, it's not. Sustainably building an app requires revenue. Whether that revenue comes in the form of a subscription, a one-time payment, or multiple payments in return for updates does not matter to the developer. There's this idea that people are idiots, not knowing that they're paying more if it's a subscription. If…

Do you run a software business for a living? I do. And I've done the calculations many times. It's exceedingly difficult to build a sustainable business based on B2C sales, and without subscriptions your customer lifetime value is basically nowhere. Either you have god-level skills at marketing and you're able to get your CAC rock-bottom-low, or your business is destined for failure.

Of course, you can also play the game of "a new major version every year". Build new features and encourage users to upgrade. I really dislike this approach, for two reasons: you end up with bloated software instead of well-maintained software (features need to be added to convince users to upgrade), and because it's really a subscription in disguise.

If you want proof, look around. There aren't many successful pay-once apps, and those that exist either play the upgrade game, or disappear after a couple of years.

Re: Subscription fatigue and related musings

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Apple earns from fees from $x per month per user in recurring revenue is greater than the fees for $y per user per upgrade for certain values of x and y depending on the number of users in each category. How do you know what you is true?

There are two scenarios: 1. Monthly subscriptions earn more revenue for developers compared to pricing sporadic upgrades/updates. 2. The converse of 1. If 1 is true, then we’d likely end up with subscriptions regardless or apples incentives here. If 2 is true, then Apple is clearly leaving money on the table, because they take a percentage of revenues, and as parent comment states, they take a higher percentage of th…

It matters as it pertains to whether or not the claim that was made is true.
Post reply on HN