Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Subscription Hell

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 610 posts

Re: Subscription Hell

#291

Post by rolleiflex »

lultimouomo wrote: post #280
rolleiflex wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that always rubbed me wrong about this is that, logically speaking, if you buy a license for a year, the perpetual fallback license should be the version you had at the end of the license, not the one that was on the market at the beginning of it. It doesn't really make sense the way they do it, and it feels like a particularly hamfisted attempt to grab an almost negligible amount of money, so I'm puzzled.

It's not the negligible amount of money that matters. The trick is that at the end of your yearly subscription you have already upgraded to a newer version, so falling back to the perpetual license means downgrading, which is both often a practical problem and (perhaps most importantly) something that I think many have an emotional aversion to. I'm pretty sure that if the fallback license was to the most recent versi…

That makes sense, thanks.

In the end, though, when I discovered this was how it worked at the end of my PyCharm subscription, it left me quite a bitter taste in my mouth, and I just stopped purchasing any JetBrains products. These kind of details are akin to trying to trick people via putting stuff into EULAs nobody reads, and for me at least, it gives the distinct feeling that they're trying very hard to screw me over, so I try to not frequent nor support those kinds of businesses, IMHO.

Re: Subscription Hell

#292

Post by kazinator »

cornholio wrote: post #35

I disagree with the author that subscriptions are objectively and inherently the superior model for web monetization. An unsung virtue of the ad-driven web it's is inclusiveness and strong worldwide redistribution effects. Everybody sees the ads, however the actual value of a pair of eyeballs is widely variable, by orders of magnitude so. It's therefore profitable to make the content free and distribute it as far as…

> There is a clearly defined model of customer, say, those living in the middle class of an OECD country

And, of course, that must be the very individual who wants those "immersive experiences, well-designed pages with fonts, graphics, photos, and videos coming together into a compelling format."

Re: Subscription Hell

#293

Post by anarazel »

cornholio wrote: post #35

I disagree with the author that subscriptions are objectively and inherently the superior model for web monetization. An unsung virtue of the ad-driven web it's is inclusiveness and strong worldwide redistribution effects. Everybody sees the ads, however the actual value of a pair of eyeballs is widely variable, by orders of magnitude so. It's therefore profitable to make the content free and distribute it as far as…

> An unsung virtue of the ad-driven web it's is inclusiveness and strong worldwide redistribution effects. Everybody sees the ads, however the actual value of a pair of eyeballs is widely variable, by orders of magnitude so. It's therefore profitable to make the content free and distribute it as far as possible, to have the best chance of catching high value visitors that covert to ad action and revenue.

> Once you move to a flat fee, this massive redistribution ceases

I think this largely disregards the effects of targeting. A lot of the things (payday loans as the prime example) advertised to people less well off are reverse redistribution, exploiting the financial situation / needs of viewers.

Re: Subscription Hell

#294

Post by h1d »

rayiner wrote: post #118

I like software subscriptions. It’s a way to ensure that the software developer is going to have a predictable revenue stream to continue to improve features and fix bugs in the software. That is valuable to me as a user.

Do note that it depends on the subscription model. If they give you a perpetual license when terminating the subscription, it would be good but if they won't let you use it, they just get paid by locking you up with less motivation to keep improving the software.

Re: Subscription Hell

#295

Post by Reedx »

gkya wrote: post #154

> Today’s consumers though have significantly higher standards than the original users of the web. Consumers want immersive experiences, well-designed pages with fonts, graphics, photos, and videos coming together into a compelling format. Citation needed. This comes up quite often, and people like to assume they know what users want all the time. But is there actual, scientific evidence that, given the same content,…

Well, they say they researched it: "Yet, all of our research shows people want high-definition images with their stories, instant loading of articles on the site, and interactivity."

They understand how much more expensive an image and JS heavy site is to develop and host, so they must have good reason to go through the trouble?

Re: Subscription Hell

#296

Post by cbanek »

I am so disappointed in bloomberg. I used to watch them fairly religiously, and Emily Chang is just great.

That being said, I wonder how much money they will make from subscriptions, and how much they will have to spend trying to protect their IP now. Youtube and other streaming sites have people streaming the cable version of channels from one subscription, and broadcasting it out to everyone. Even a reasonable security team of half a dozen people to police these policies would seem like a million dollar investment, and having a paywall makes it a cat and mouse game of security.

Re: Subscription Hell

#297

Post by kittiepryde »

rolleiflex wrote: post #291
lultimouomo wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the negligible amount of money that matters. The trick is that at the end of your yearly subscription you have already upgraded to a newer version, so falling back to the perpetual license means downgrading, which is both often a practical problem and (perhaps most importantly) something that I think many have an emotional aversion to. I'm pretty sure that if the fallback license was to the most recent versi…

That makes sense, thanks. In the end, though, when I discovered this was how it worked at the end of my PyCharm subscription, it left me quite a bitter taste in my mouth, and I just stopped purchasing any JetBrains products. These kind of details are akin to trying to trick people via putting stuff into EULAs nobody reads, and for me at least, it gives the distinct feeling that they're trying very hard to screw me ov…

So, is what they are doing worse than what most subscription models do (lose complete access)?

I've been using them for awhile and I felt they were really up front about what they were doing, but I don't know if they've always been as transparent.

Re: Subscription Hell

#298

Post by scarface74 »

gravity_123 wrote: post #284
coldtea wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mobile app stores killed that model, when they made continuous, perpetual updates the norm. Continuous, perpetual updates are definitely NOT the norm in mobile apps. Some get some bug-fixes and the occasional new feature, but any major update lands a version 2.0. Far more (the "long tail") are just abandoned (like all those thousands of 32-bit apps being deprecated in the iOS store).

Both apple and google don't support 'pay for upgrade' model. Its either subscription or pay once. Of course, you can roll out your own payment gateway(which apple has further issues with) or re upload the app under a new v2 name, but those are not very satisfactory solutions.

There is a way to provide upgrade pricing for iOS. It's an ugly hack though....

2015 - you sold v1 for $5.00

2017 - you start selling v2.

You sell v1 for $5.00 but in the description tell everyone not to buy it.

You sell v2 for $5.00 but direct people who have already bought v1 to buy the bundle of v1 and v2 that you price at $8. Anyone who has already bought v1 can buy the bundle for $3.

Re: Subscription Hell

#299

Post by cube2222 »

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…

I must say I actually love the subscription model that is becoming the de facto standard.

If you sell a one time license to somebody there is no incentive for the seller to keep making the product better, to care keep caring for you.

With a subscription model - especially a non-annually-paid one, they have to keep working to keep you.

It's also a way more sustainable business model and probably the only thing which can replace ads in practice. If a service like facebook gets a load of money out of you per year, there's no way they would switch to a one-time fee instead. If it were to be replaced by a subscription though, then you're still a constant money flow for them, which would work much better.

Re: Subscription Hell

#300

Post by wutbrodo »

wffurr wrote: post #273
wutbrodo wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd expect prompting users to choose whether reading a story is worth $0.05 to them every time will cause them to read and engage significantly less. 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 st…

Electricity is different. The charge is decoupled from point of use. When you flip a light switch, it doesn't visibly and immediately bill you 2¢. The bag tax, pay per article, etc. do.

Do you mean that the usage and the monthly bill are separated in time? I don't see why the pay per article couldn't work the same way. The bag tax example was ludicrous for a different reason: namely that carrying multiple loads in your arms is more than worth five cents for all but the absolutely poorest Americans.
Post reply on HN