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

351–360 of 610 posts

Re: Subscription Hell

#351

Post by ehnto »

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.

Why should it work that way? You get the updates based on the assumption you are a subscriber, and you get the fallback license based on the assumption that you made a one off purchase at the date of purchase. It's logical the way it works.

Re: Subscription Hell

#352

Post by squaredpants »

profalseidol wrote: post #339
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/

Was about to post the same! Brave has some pretty cool upgrades incoming as well!

Re: Subscription Hell

#353

Post by shripadk »

ehnto wrote: post #351
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.

Why should it work that way? You get the updates based on the assumption you are a subscriber, and you get the fallback license based on the assumption that you made a one off purchase at the date of purchase. It's logical the way it works.

It doesn't for the simple reason that they provide updates for the entire year. Surely those updates aren't provided for free. They are provided for purchase you made in advance for a year. If I cancel midway I should be entitled for all the updates till the end of the period. Unless those updates were free and not part of the sale. In which case, the licensee should still get those updates anyways for the period. You look at it either way it still doesn't make any sense. Or, they should return the update fee they charged for the year during the sale on pro-rata basis.

Also, how would you account for it? You can't retrospectively change the nature of purchase from subscription to a one-off sale! That would be audit hell for their accountant.

Re: Subscription Hell

#354

Post by brandonjm »

wpietri wrote: post #240
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…

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…

I bought a copy of Office 2016 when it came out, it has now lasted me 2 years and I paid about the same as 2 years worth of Office 365. I intend to keep using it until it is no longer supported at all and I am sure I will have saved quite a bit of money for effectively the same product.

Re: Subscription Hell

#355

Post by hmahncke »

wpietri wrote: post #240
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…

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…

This can become problematic when an OS update breaks the perpetual fallback license software. As a developer, you can tell the customer that they have to upgrade the software (for a fee) because they upgraded their OS, but customers aren't happy about this either.

Re: Subscription Hell

#356

Post by nitrogen »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #334
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.

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.

Sounds similar to employers who pay contracted bonuses late, don't pay if you quit before the bonus date, and use bonuses to make up for reduced salaries.

Re: Subscription Hell

#357

Post by donarb »

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.

You can actually keep your next current version by buying for a few months to extend to the next 12 month anniversary. See last timeline example on this page:

https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207240845-What...

Re: Subscription Hell

#358

Post by SirHound »

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…

The difference is you used to pay for a new version. Software 2 would be charged for another $50. Whereas now you pay for Software and it gets improved in perpetuity. It should be charged as such.

Re: Subscription Hell

#359

Post by twblalock »

gnicholas wrote: post #286
makecheck wrote: post #177

“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…

Yeah, not so much what consumers want as what succeeds on social media.

If people don't want it, why does it succeed on social media, or anywhere at all?

Re: Subscription Hell

#360

Post by zerowellies »

chrisseaton wrote: post #340
zerowellies wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 price…

Right, they pay more because the company wills it and people (I think) are more receptive to subscribitions. This is what the author of the article is complaining about and the reason consumer advocacy groups exist.
Post reply on HN