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

331–340 of 610 posts

Re: Subscription Hell

#331

Post by cube2222 »

zerowellies wrote: post #329
cube2222 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do understand that. I'm not saying there's one size fits all. I just don't agree that subscribtions are inherently bad.

But - if those preferring a perpetual license were to be a strong minority, there would be no business incentive to make products in such a way.

Re: Subscription Hell

#332

Post by koonsolo »

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…

On the other hand, since we are on HackerNews, this is a HUGE business opportunity.

Some time ago I bought Affinity Designer because I don't want to pay Adobe for a subscription. And going back to that website, one of the first things they promote is "No subscription. Only €54.99".

Seems obvious that any big player that is switching to subscription only, is leaving a gap for smaller companies that support people like us.

Re: Subscription Hell

#333

Post by shripadk »

rolleiflex wrote: post #277
wpietri wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A model I really like is the one IntelliJ uses. They encourage you to buy a subscription. But when you buy a year at once, you get a "perpetual fallback license" such that you can always keep using the version that is current when you buy: https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207240845-What... That means I always will have access to my projects and to the level of functionality I start with. But I keep getti…

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.

> 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.

You are absolutely right! That's exactly how it should work but it's surprising that they don't do it that way. I can give you an explanation from accounting perspective: When the sale happens, the accountant would record the sale in their Books of Account as "Unearned/Prepaid Revenue" (as a liability). It makes sense as you have taken money "in advance" for a sale but haven't delivered the updates yet and hence you cannot claim it as Income. Every time you put out an update, you can claim a portion of the "Unearned/Prepaid Revenue" as "Revenue" and push it from liability to "Retained earnings" account as Income. When the year expires (note that the year is for the user not the financial year) the accountant would claim the remaining Unearned/Prepaid Revenue as Revenue/Income.

I wonder how they manage their Books of Accounts if they have defined that the license falls back to the earlier version. What they are doing doesn't make sense from an accounting perspective as well!

Re: Subscription Hell

#334

Post by chiefalchemist »

rolleiflex wrote: post #277
wpietri wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A model I really like is the one IntelliJ uses. They encourage you to buy a subscription. But when you buy a year at once, you get a "perpetual fallback license" such that you can always keep using the version that is current when you buy: https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207240845-What... That means I always will have access to my projects and to the level of functionality I start with. But I keep getti…

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.

Slightly off topic, but semi related. My parents had a one year membership at Costco. The level where you get some percentage back. I think it was 2%.

Long to short, the "rebate" was paid ~60 days prior to the end of the 12 months. The remaining 60 days' purchased will only be rebated if they renew.

I presume this is in the small print somewhere. None the less, it's complete crap.

Re: Subscription Hell

#335

Post by daniel_iversen »

Interesting to see how far he pendulum has swung that a lot (well a certain kind) of users aren’t even wanting ads to pay for their consumption anymore! Is it because of the advances in deep and psychological/manipulative targeting we’ve seen recently or just in general?

Re: Subscription Hell

#336

Post by koonsolo »

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…

> 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.

I strongly disagree on this one. If they want to sell you version 2.0 (upgrade), they better make sure those new features are worth their money.

With a subscription model, you either keep paying them or you lose it all. Why would they improve their product when you're already paying them x/month?

Re: Subscription Hell

#337

Post by haglin »

What we need is a cryptocurrency capable of handling microtransactions. Then we need web browser support (a standard) for a cryptocurrency wallet.

When you visit a web page, you can pay for the content by clicking Yes in a dialog box. When you don't have money in you wallet, you can fill it up using your credit card, or some bank solution. The price is shown in your currency of choice, but all the transactions happens on the blockchain.

People who make web pages can paste in some javascript to charge for content. No third party organization needs to get involved and the seller can't get charge backs. The transaction fee will be low so that you can charge pennies for a news article. This will work without you giving away you credit card number, name, address, e-mail etc. to the seller.

Re: Subscription Hell

#338

Post by koonsolo »

Legogris wrote: post #15

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…

IMHO, cryptocurrencies like Nano offer a great solution to these micro-payments use cases.

(Everytime I talk about cryptocurrencies on HN, I get downvoted without any proper response. So bring it on! ;))

Re: Subscription Hell

#339

Post by profalseidol »

haglin wrote: post #337

What we need is a cryptocurrency capable of handling microtransactions. Then we need web browser support (a standard) for a cryptocurrency wallet. When you visit a web page, you can pay for the content by clicking Yes in a dialog box. When you don't have money in you wallet, you can fill it up using your credit card, or some bank solution. The price is shown in your currency of choice, but all the transactions happen…

Here you go:

https://brave.com/

https://basicattentiontoken.org/

Re: Subscription Hell

#340

Post by chrisseaton »

zerowellies wrote: post #325
chrisseaton wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Why should they have to continue paying for Photoshop as a service if they're happy with the current version?

Ultimately - because the person who owns the rights for the software wants to keep charging them and since it's their software they decide what is charged for it, end of story.

If it's not a good deal for you, go somewhere else. There's no point arguing about prices beyond that. There's no 'should' in prices - only what people want to charge and what people want to pay.

Post reply on HN