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

321–330 of 610 posts

Re: Subscription Hell

#321

Post by un-devmox »

matmann2001 wrote: post #254
un-devmox wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason why a publication can't charge more for an in-depth piece. I'd gladly pay far more for a comprehensive exposé.

How will you know it's a comprehensive exposé? How will you evaluate whether an article is going to be worth the price?

> How will you know it's a comprehensive exposé?

How about before I purchase there's an excerpt and the number of words that lay ahead? I mean, it couldn't be that hard to distinguish comprehensive articles vs the norm.

> How will you evaluate whether an article is going to be worth the price?

I wouldn't know. And if it wasn't worth it, I probably wouldn't purchase a future piece from the same reporter. That said, there could be a review system. (Just brainstorming here)

Re: Subscription Hell

#322

Post by bdhess »

chad_oliver wrote: post #317
bitL wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had a much more customer-friendly model before - you pay yearly updates and keep the last update. Now you keep the very first version only.

That's not entirely true. You can keep any version that you've paid one year worth of subscription for. That means that if you subscribe for three years then cancel your subscription, you'll always have access to the version that was released one year before you cancelled.

I think parent’s gripe is that if you end your subscription, you can’t keep any updates that come out during your last year, so you likely need to go backwards with your installed version.

Re: Subscription Hell

#323

Post by cube2222 »

zerowellies wrote: post #304
cube2222 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

How many products need constant feature updates? Aside from security/compatibility there are plenty of products that already meet everything required of them (to near everyone). How many new features does a file manager need? An PDF reader? For Facebook - I don't think forced subscription would work. People would be forced to think about how much they value the service (a less ubiquitous one at that).

Not only feature updates. Also everyday bug, security updates and also operating costs.

1. Operating system 2. Programming IDE 3. Password Manager 4. Well I pay subscription for Netflix and Spotify but that's not really for the updates. Partly for new content, partly operating costs. 5. Facebook (I'd prefer to cover the operating costs by subscription, I really dislike ads) 6. Email - same as above

Also, actually I'd like all the services I use to provide feature updates now and then and continue trying to innovate.

Edit: also, if you do feature updates every now and then. Like it was with Windows or Photoshop. Then you end up having to support a lot of parallel versions with security and bug fixes which is wasted work really.

Re: Subscription Hell

#324

Post by matchagaucho »

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…

Price gouging will create opportunities for new entrants.

Re: Subscription Hell

#325

Post by zerowellies »

chrisseaton wrote: post #319
zerowellies wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adobe Acrobat Pro, Foxit Phantom PDF. I'll concede I can't think of a file manager though.

But those are PDF editors, not PDF readers.

True. How many new features do they need? What about word processors? Photo editors? Email clients? There are new features that could be useful, but for many users their needs are already fulfilled. Why should they have to continue paying for Photoshop as a service if they're happy with the current version? I apologise for my poor examples.

Re: Subscription Hell

#326

Post by davidp »

> We didn’t need paywalls on the early web because we focused on plain text from other users. Plain text is easier to produce, lowering the friction for people to contribute, and it’s also cheaper to store and transmit, lowering the cost of bandwidth.

This is jarringly bad analysis that says more about TechCrunch's view of "content" than it does about anything else.

The cost of the "plain text" produced by the likes of true journalistic organizations like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, WaPo, et al comes from the salaries of the journalists and the resources needed to support them (travel, domestic bureaus, foreign bureaus, fees, etc.).

We didn't need paywalls on the early web because... well, maybe we did need them and we failed to build them or invest in alternatives: Look at what's happening to journalism.[0]

The author may have a point about there being an opportunity to streamline something, but if it doesn't result in money being directed to people creating the content that really matters (and honestly, people voting with their pocketbooks is the only rational way to choose just which content that is, unless you want someone else deciding for you), then it changes nothing.

Personally I'm happy to send subscription money to these organizations, at least, and grateful for the privilege to do so.

[0]: lmgtfy https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2...

Re: Subscription Hell

#327

Post by Rapzid »

Joeri wrote: post #230
sn0wfire wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jetbrains does not require subscriptions for continued use of any version. Purchasing a 12-month subscription (which is cheaper than their previous "perpetual license") gives you a perpetual license for the current version of software. This is actually my favourite licensing technique I have come across for software. https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207240845-What...

There’s a difference though. Previously the version you ended up with was the one at the end of the year of updates. In the current model you have to reinstall the old version of the time of purchase, undoing the updates you got. It’s actually quite clever since you immediately notice what you’re missing by not paying.

I could have sworn they offer specials or something where you can get the current and next version.. can't recall, I end up upgrading each year to keep my discount going.

Re: Subscription Hell

#328

Post by pmichaud »

cube2222 wrote: post #299
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 c…

When you say "working to keep you" I think you're imagining the software becoming more valuable and useful to you, such that you are happy to keep paying them.

In reality, those companies who don't do scummy things like attempt to lock your data or similar, will be out competed by those who do.

Re: Subscription Hell

#329

Post by zerowellies »

cube2222 wrote: post #323
zerowellies wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many products need constant feature updates? Aside from security/compatibility there are plenty of products that already meet everything required of them (to near everyone). How many new features does a file manager need? An PDF reader? For Facebook - I don't think forced subscription would work. People would be forced to think about how much they value the service (a less ubiquitous one at that).

Not only feature updates. Also everyday bug, security updates and also operating costs. 1. Operating system 2. Programming IDE 3. Password Manager 4. Well I pay subscription for Netflix and Spotify but that's not really for the updates. Partly for new content, partly operating costs. 5. Facebook (I'd prefer to cover the operating costs by subscription, I really dislike ads) 6. Email - same as above Also, actually I'd…

The model works for you - great. There are users who don't care for constant feature updates and rather own a product than perpetually rent it.

Re: Subscription Hell

#330

Post by rolleiflex »

kittiepryde wrote: post #297
rolleiflex wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's definitely better than that. But it's still not good. This is all my personal opinion though, I already voted with my wallet by not buying their products any more.
Post reply on HN