Subscription Hell • Hacker News Board

Re: Subscription Hell

#171

Post by lsc » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

I actually think the root of our 'fake news' problem is that credible sources charge for content, while crank sources don't.

And credible news has always spent more on content creation than niche news. The cost of content creation has not fallen, while the cost of distribution has fallen dramatically.

So, it's completely natural that the price difference at the consumer side between high and low quality news would have changed dramatically.

The problem is that you hit a news story on the major aggregators (google news, at least, gives you a bunch of stories on the same topic from different newspapers) and you have to pay money to the more credible sources, while the completely wacky takes are often free.

Personally, I'd really like it if apple (or someone similar with a history of, you know, treating users as customers) would create a news service where I give apple twenty bucks a month, and it lets me read 100 news articles from the major papers, distributing some of that revenue to the papers in question. (they could even have tiers. or an easy way for me to 'buy this article' for two fifty or whatever. Heck, the NYT could setup an easy apple pay 'buy this article for two fifty' button without more apple help than is required to make apple pay work, and I'd probably use it at least once a week.)

As is, I periodically subscribe to the NYT on my kindle, but while the reading experience on the kindle is wonderful, the discovery experience is terrible. I usually read it for a while, then I cancel after realizing I haven't been using it (see the discovery complaint)

Re: Subscription Hell

#172

Post by FPGAhacker » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

imh wrote: post #142

ChuckMcM wrote: post #18

I 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…

That seems counter to what makes moviepass so successful. I pay a fixed monthly cost, and now the incremental cost of each movie is $0. Decoupling the consumption from the payment changes how I think about going to see a movie. It seems like consumers may prefer this model, at least with regards to movies in theaters (moviepass), movies and tv at home (netflix), and music (spotify).

Moviepass is cratering. Why would you say they are successful? The are net negative on a per customer basis. They lost $150M last quarter.

Their only positive income is investment rounds. Negative return on investment.

It’s like subsidizing your company with credit cards. And having a business model of “apply for new credit cards”

Re: Subscription Hell

#173

Post by jakobegger » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:31 PM UTC

always_good wrote: post #58

techsupporter wrote: post #33

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…

One-time payments for software amount to a pyramid scheme where you benefit from the money of future users. That's not without its downsides either, where your userbase grows indefinitely yet doesn't pay for its own support-email rent. There's obviously a middle ground, like being able to at least use the version you paid for indefinitely but having to pay a smaller price to upgrade. But which direction a pricing str…

There's a flaw in your logic: You assume that everyone keeps using every app they bought forever. If that was the case, pay-once would be unsustainable.

However, that is not the case. Everyone stops using your app at some point. So you don't need to support users forever, you just need to support them for some finite amount of time. Some users might use your app for a few years, some use your app just for a few weeks. Some users will email you half a dozen times, but most will never email you. Your app price should be priced so you can afford to support the average user.

And another thing that people forget: When your user base is growing, the amount of word of mouth recommendation you get also grows, and you automatically start selling more licenses, so your revenue also grows.

Pay-once and subscription aren't really that different in practice. Pay-once even has an advantage: You get all the money up front. And that's awesome if you are planning to grow your company.

Re: Subscription Hell

#174

Post by nixpulvis » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

sturgill wrote: post #168

“You’ve found market price when buyers complain but still pay.” Subscription revenue is great business. And the optimization of price to maximize profits is a set of fun math problems. It sounds to me like the author doesn’t love how much he spends on things but isn’t willing to do without. Also known as optimal pricing...

To me the issues isn't directly about price (though it's often a part of it), but more about the idea of paying for something continuously versus once. Almost a form of out of sight out of mind.

Re: Subscription Hell

#175

Post by goatherders » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:33 PM UTC

zerostar07 wrote: post #151

goatherders wrote: post #126

Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority, but I think if publishers want to make people pay for content then they should. Saying that people dont want to pay for something they used to get for free may be correct, but that doesn't make it right. Things that have value can be given away for free. Or they can be charged for. And that decision should be made by the producer, not the consumer.

Content is information which is goods (edit: not a commodity) and nobody has the right to say it is "right" to force others to pay for it. The market decides its price.

Content is a commodity? Good lord. What color is the sky on your planet? You pay for content already. All of it.

Re: Subscription Hell

#176

Post by Zanni » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

imh wrote: post #142

ChuckMcM wrote: post #18

I 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…

That seems counter to what makes moviepass so successful. I pay a fixed monthly cost, and now the incremental cost of each movie is $0. Decoupling the consumption from the payment changes how I think about going to see a movie. It seems like consumers may prefer this model, at least with regards to movies in theaters (moviepass), movies and tv at home (netflix), and music (spotify).

On the flip side, sometimes to a service's detriment. I think this model works well for MoviePass, Netflix, Spotify, but MasterClass recently shifted to an all-you-can-eat subscription model (before you paid per class), and even though the service is the same and the price is cheaper (for me), my interaction with the service suffered. Before, I'd carefully carve out time for a MasterClass I was interested in, knowing it was a big commitment in time and dollars. Now I can just dip in and out to anything on offer, and that's exactly what I've done. My engagement has gone way down because I'm not committed to an individual class in the same way.

Re: Subscription Hell

#177

Post by makecheck » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

“Consumers want immersive experiences, well-designed pages with fonts, graphics, photos, and videos coming together into a compelling format.”

Oh come on, NO I do not want that! One of the biggest problems with ads, news sites and other stuff is that almost any of these “experiences”, especially with video, are a drain on data plans and implemented terribly. Give me an article. If that article has some simple images and plain text as ads, that would be fine. The issue is that instead, sites take way too many liberties and turn it into a pop-up, slide-out, scripted mess that destroys the whole “experience” of reading an article.

And somebody should tell web sites that it used to cost 25 cents for an ENTIRE daily newspaper (that still contained ads), which can’t be more than a few bucks a month. If your subscription is ANY more than a couple of bucks, it will fail.

Re: Subscription Hell

#178

Post by un-devmox » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #18

I 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…

We do the same with app subscriptions. I may go a month or 2 not using an app. It's always made me question the subscription model. There are times I won't subscribe where as I would have purchased the app for a one time fee.

Re: Subscription Hell

#179

Post by PrunJuice » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:39 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #171

I actually think the root of our 'fake news' problem is that credible sources charge for content, while crank sources don't. And credible news has always spent more on content creation than niche news. The cost of content creation has not fallen, while the cost of distribution has fallen dramatically. So, it's completely natural that the price difference at the consumer side between high and low quality news would ha…

Check out Blendle https://blendle.com/

They aren't Apple but they do the pay per article thing.

Re: Subscription Hell

#180

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sun, May 06, 2018, 7:39 PM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #115

hedora wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real innovation of the *aaS model is that you no longer need to compete with prior versions of your own software or hardware infrastructure. You can hike prices, cut engineering costs, cut some nines off your availability, defeature, or just plain embrace incompetence, and, in the short term, it will improve your balance sheet. Of course, in the long term, customers will revolt, and do so swiftly, and without mer…

I don't know. I think a lot of people have decided they like things like the Adobe products subscription. Instead of the several thousand dollars you would have had to pay for the various softwares in the lineup up front, you just pay $50 a month. Which is reasonable of you previously used more than just Photoshop and maybe upgraded every 3 to 4 years. If the end result is a similar cost, I would much rather keep my…

There are some benefits in terms of product as well, if Adobe knows they have subscription revenue then they may be more focussed on fixing bugs and keeping existing customers than adding dubious features in an attempt to get upgrade revenue.