Live data from Hacker News

Subscription Hell

techcrunch.com

211–220 of 610 posts

Re: Subscription Hell

#211
There's so many things wrong with this article, but I'll focus in on one particular thing:

> 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 illustrate, that price is vastly out of proportion from the cost of providing the software (which I might add, is entirely hosted on iCloud infrastructure).

...does this person understand how software works? Yes, the marginal cost of providing software to a particular person is almost always very low, sometimes so low it basically rounds down to zero. But you're not just charging to pay for the costs of delivering the software, but for developing it, too. And, of course, some goes to profit, which is perfectly reasonable in a capitalist word.

With businesses who are mainly reselling a thing, looking at it as "cost of thing + X% profit" is a perfectly reasonable way to frame things. There's only so much value a retailer or middleman can add, and generally there are competitors that could offer the same item. But when it comes to software, each individual item costs basically nothing to provide, so that kind of analysis fails and you have to accept that the price is essentially arbitrary.

Re: Subscription Hell

#212
Where is the Spotify for news content? Make me pay a flat rate, and distribute between the news outlets proportional to which I used the most? That seems fair

Re: Subscription Hell

#213
post #141
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the EU, the GDPR will make data takeout APIs (or some guy exporting as CSV and mailing it to you) mandatory.

Mandatory, yes, but the GDPR does not say it should be done for free. I offer data exports for all my services, so I'm compliant with the GDPR, but you will have to pay me for my time

Careful, there, it does say that in Article 12, (5):

"Information provided under Articles 13 and 14 and any communication and any actions taken under Articles 15 to 22 and 34 shall be provided free of charge".

(Article 15 is the Right of access by the data subject.)

You can only charge for subsequent copies or when "requests from a data subject are manifestly unfounded or excessive".

--

See also the ICO FAQ on the subject: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...

Re: Subscription Hell

#214

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…

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…

> 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.

The price is so low that there is little friction. You also get a full refund if you are disappointed, further reducing friction.

Furthermore you don't pay every time but you pay from an account with Blendle.

Re: Subscription Hell

#215

A standard for micropayment for content needs to evolve. Our relationships to publishers have changed substantially. I would be willing to pay per read from sources like The Guardian, New York Times, The Economist, etc, but I am not frequent enough to want to subscribe. For the citizen who wants to get their information from different sources across the globe and political spectrum, it gets unreasonable to expect sub…

We have a local news website that I think has a realistic model. When you view an article with an ad-blocker it shows you a dialog with a variety of options: 1. Whitelist the site 2. "Nah, journalists should go hungry" - this dismisses the popup and lets you read the article with your blocker intact 3. 5c - read the article ad-free 4. 10c - 1 hour of no-ads 5. 30c - 1 day of no-ads I've converted to US cents, but eve…

[deleted]

Re: Subscription Hell

#216
I'd like to throw in my pay-per-minute concept for video content. It's been tried before but I think it's the business model for media monetization that will win in the end. Basically a platform like Youtube could charge users a penny per minute and distribute to content creators after taking a platform percentage fee.

Starting something like this would have a huge chicken and egg problem though because no content creators would join a platform without a large existing user base. And I think Youtube and others would have trouble trying out a new business model because they might lose the confidence of their ad customers.

Re: Subscription Hell

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About Ulysses specifically... they say when they were charging a monthly fee their users still expected regular updates after they paid.. and that sales would spike after a release, then fall to an unsustainable level: https://medium.com/building-ulysses/why-were-switching-ulyss... "that price is vastly out of proportion from the cost of providing the software" That's just an unfounded assumption by the author. He sa…

well, that is economics 101. consumers price goods by value, not by costs. if your costs are higher than consumers are willing to pay, then you will at some point go bankrupt.

> consumers price goods by value, not by costs

But the point is he's a consumer and he isn't pricing by value - he's pricing by costs.

Re: Subscription Hell

#218

People need to understand that the alternative to ads is paying hundreds of dollars a month in subscription fees and then still not having access to all the services you would have had access to in an ad economy world. People in Europe will soon get this wakeup call. Services that were only marginally profitable are already shutting down because of GDPR. I'm confident that the EU government and its citizens have litt…

Honestly, I don't think it would be a great loss to forgo most of the advertising funded content.

>Honestly, I don't think it would be a great loss to forgo most of the advertising funded content.

Since you clearly haven't put much thought into this comment let's just start listing things that are funded by ads

- News

- content creators on youtube

- music

- twitch

- search

- blogs

- websites with tutorials

- a thousand different things which I have missed

and then facebook, snapchat, instagram, and twitter which of course you are too good for

Re: Subscription Hell

#219
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But 50€ a month is way too much for casual users. I do some vector design work maybe once a month. I'd love to buy a license for Illustrator, if it cost whatever it used to cost before Creative Cloud. I would use it for a long time. But 50€ per month is too much. So I bought a license for Affinity Designer instead. It covers most of my needs, and it's no subscription. I also bought a license for Sketch, since the sub…

They never became more expensive. They were extremely expensive to begin with and now they’re a lot cheaper. Previously it was like 500€ or so? That's too much for the casual user as well.

Here’s the reality. I used to pirate Adobe software because there was no way I was going to pay 1500k or whatever Photoshop was. Adobe got $0 from me.

Now I subscribe to get access to Photoshop. Adobe now gets £100 from me a year. I’m not the only person I know who went through this.

Of course, cheaper alternatives always existed. Adobe’s adoptance of subscription pricing hasn’t changed that.

Re: Subscription Hell

#220

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…

There has been a LOT of effort put behind micro transactions for publishing, from companies that have all the resources and incentive in the world, like Google. The market simply doesn't want it. The average consumer isn't remotely rational enough to amortize a subscription cost and compare it to a unit cost. The way they process the incentives of a subscription is more like: "once you've reached the threshold where…

> There has been a LOT of effort put behind micro transactions for publishing, from companies that have all the resources and incentive in the world, like Google.

I feel I used to follow Google quite closely before and I cannot remember seing any hints of this.

My feeling has rather been that any form for paying has been looked at as second class compared to ads at that company.

Youtube Red still isn't available here and I haven't heard a thing about the idea they had last year that we could pay to avoid ads.

Do you have any pointers?

Post reply on HN