TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Dear startups: I hate subscription services (2021)

277 点作者 Hbruz0将近 3 年前

64 条评论

spaceman_2020将近 3 年前
Part of the problem is that most of these startups simply have too much overhead to offer their product for free or cheap.<p>Like I never understood why most of these basic tools morph into 100+ people companies. A tool like Evernote can be built and maintained by under 20 people. Even at inflated salaries, your yearly burn would be under $10M.<p>This is part of a broader trend of startup overhiring. Like Better.com had 10k employees at one point. What are those people even doing at a “startup”?<p>This late in the startup cycle, you really need to ask why a 10k person company hasn’t IPOed and why is it still calling itself a “startup”
评论 #32286680 未加载
评论 #32286527 未加载
评论 #32287615 未加载
评论 #32286697 未加载
评论 #32295577 未加载
评论 #32287682 未加载
gordaco将近 3 年前
I&#x27;m a very, very firm believer on not paying for &quot;subscription&quot; to software. New content, I can understand (I spend about 40€ monthly on several Patreons, mostly comic artists; and I have a couple news subscriptions as well), although I still hate music&#x2F;tv subscriptions and I don&#x27;t want Netflix, Spotify or whatever. But for software, <i>no matter how useful it is</i>, I just refuse to choose between an unbounded price and the possibility of losing it because I don&#x27;t want to keep paying. For the record, I don&#x27;t have any problems paying, say, 400€ for Mathematica and things like that (in fact, I haven&#x27;t pirated anything in a very long time). But I paid once and I can use the software as much as I want without paying again.<p>For me, it&#x27;s not about the amount of money, but the peace of mind (no additional bills, no additional shit to renew when I my debit card expires, and most important, I don&#x27;t need to engage in any bullshit cancellation process). In the rare cases where both a subscription and a single payment is offered, I&#x27;ve done the math and from time to time I actually estimate that I&#x27;ll spend less money on the subscription (although normally it&#x27;s the other way around, of course), but even in these cases, I prefer paying upfront. I hate that this is becoming less and less available.
评论 #32293933 未加载
评论 #32285877 未加载
评论 #32289221 未加载
codeptualize将近 3 年前
I don&#x27;t mind subscriptions, I actually prefer them for many things.<p>Especially for software I rely on I want the developers to consistently earn money so they keep motivated to work on it, do maintenance and fix bugs. I don&#x27;t pay for software, I pay for the thing it allows me to do. Me paying a subscription fee creates an incentive and responsibility to keep things working.<p>If there is a backend component to its even more important as they will have continuous cost.<p>Also the &quot;one off&quot; model usually means you&#x27;ll pay for versions which is not always cheaper. Take Sketch for example, some of my clients use it so I had to update each year spending 99$. With subscription I could just use it for a project and cancel afterwards saving money, something I have done with Adobe software (although I find their prices way too high).<p>If something is too expensive I will find alternatives, that has imo nothing to do with the subscription model.
评论 #32286401 未加载
评论 #32285847 未加载
评论 #32286897 未加载
评论 #32285834 未加载
szastamasta将近 3 年前
I really liked the old way it used to work. You bought a license for software and got only bugfixes and security patches. Every second year there was a new version released with 50-75% upgrade price for current users.<p>I totally understand subscriptions for online services that run on provider servers&#x2F;storage etc. (like Evernote) or content services where you get access to a vast database of always growing content, that you would never afford to buy at once. But stuff like Bear notes, Autodesk Fusion 360, etc. These I don’t understand. If you cannot justify a new version users want to pay for, then don’t make it. I think most users would gladly pay for new features and improvements. Just don’t make them cash cows driving your business model on fear of loss.
评论 #32286569 未加载
Havoc将近 3 年前
I can deal with them conceptually - I just dislike how they go about things on the billing &amp; signup side.<p>Its usually quite darkpattern-y in vibe. See trials that switch to paid, or discounts for 1 month (heavily advertised) then extortionate rate (in fine print) after. Or easy online sign up, phone in during office hours to cancel. Or getting mercilessly hounded to re-sub after cancellation.<p>If they just behaved a little less scummy things would be better
评论 #32285693 未加载
评论 #32285867 未加载
nbzso将近 3 年前
SaaS model is applicable in some use cases. The VC like it, because they can give the investors comfortable idea of progressive growth and quick ROI. But I am patiently waiting to see what will be the consumer reaction when everything becomes compartmentalized and monetized to hell. Like the great ideas of geniuses in BMW headquarters:)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thedrive.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;bmw-is-charging-a-subscription-fee-for-heated-seats-again" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thedrive.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;bmw-is-charging-a-subscription...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;story&#x2F;bmw-heated-seats-as-a-service-model-has-drivers-seeking-hacks&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;story&#x2F;bmw-heated-seats-as-a-service-mo...</a>
评论 #32286584 未加载
评论 #32286598 未加载
评论 #32286637 未加载
Barrin92将近 3 年前
One thing that subscriptions have going for them is that they&#x27;re a relatively fair way to charge for products that have continuous operating and development costs.<p>With one-off payments there&#x27;s the obvious issue that you&#x27;re either overcharging in case the startup (which the article talks about specifically) fails or you&#x27;re severely undercharging which I think is more common if anything.<p>Just a few days ago I noticed I still have a lifetime membership for a podcast app that I once bought for almost nothing and they still ship features. While lucky for me personally not necessarily great for either the devs or other users who joined later after they switched to subscriptions.
评论 #32285733 未加载
评论 #32285784 未加载
gizmo将近 3 年前
The VC model is to blame, I think. The default VC calculation goes something like this. $100 million fund invested in 20 companies at $5 each. 18 or so go bust, break-even, get acquihired. The remaining two return maybe $100m each after 10 years. With this outcome the VC fund has a meager return, barely outperforms the S&amp;P on a risk-adjusted basis.<p>What VCs are really looking for are big multibillion dollar exits. And you can&#x27;t get there by selling $50 perpetual usage licenses to consumers.<p>It&#x27;s a real shame, because most software I use can be written by a handful of good engineers in a couple of years. You can make great software that stands the test of time this way. But businesses that operate this way are not investible. And they now have to compete with free products dumped on the market by goliaths such as MS and Apple, and with free products made by venture backed companies that just want to gobble up market share, aiming for a monetizable monopoly down the road.
评论 #32287167 未加载
评论 #32286820 未加载
mattjenner将近 3 年前
Dear innovative people: think of a better model.<p>1. Free = problematic with the lack of money<p>2. Freemium = looks good if the balance is right<p>3. Ads = Mostly works but the model is flawed and skewed<p>4. Subscription = Love&#x2F;Hate currently trendy but too relied on<p>5. Pay-what-you-can = Fans provide the service for everyone<p>6. Premium only = Only what it&#x27;s worth, when it&#x27;s worth<p>7. Enterprise = S&#x27;ok because my company&#x2F;org pays for it<p>8. Tokenised = S&#x27;ok because the next person pays for mine...<p>9. Charitable &#x2F; foundation = Someone more wealthy pays<p>10. None of the above = For now somehow it works<p>There are probably 10 more models already, 10 more out there and 10 more coming soon. Get thinking, stop complaining.
评论 #32285711 未加载
评论 #32286256 未加载
评论 #32286090 未加载
评论 #32285862 未加载
评论 #32286075 未加载
评论 #32286009 未加载
评论 #32286152 未加载
评论 #32286139 未加载
评论 #32286374 未加载
amelius将近 3 年前
Dear governments, I hate that I can&#x27;t unsubscribe from services without going through the provider&#x27;s dark-patterns first.
评论 #32285739 未加载
评论 #32285723 未加载
andix将近 3 年前
Most subscriptions are just way too expensive!<p>I make good money, but I can’t afford to have 10 subscription services for 9,99 per month. I have a few for 0,99 per month.
评论 #32285746 未加载
fulvioterzapi将近 3 年前
There are a couple of services I would love to use, but I have a strict no-subscription policy. It just gives me bad vibes, I would rather pay 24 months upfront and have the full application&#x2F;service.<p>Of course this does not matter, because the MBAs in charge showed in a PowerPoint presentation that the subscription model will squeeze 11.1% more money for customers, mostly from people who forget to unsubscribe.
dangus将近 3 年前
The author hates subscription services, but the author doesn’t fit the ideal customer profile.<p>Someone who only pays for something once isn’t a customer that any company should want to attract in the first place, especially when you consider marketing costs.<p>The author would pay the LTV or even more, but the author is in the minority. Most people would pay some small amount of money once and then happily never pay another dime. They don’t drop hundreds of dollars on their LTV.<p>The author used Adobe as an example, and that’s where I should point out that it was one of the most pirated pieces of software on the market. SaaS basically eliminates that issue entirely.<p>Also, most consumers budget on a monthly basis. Ten bucks a month is easier to swallow than $150 all at once for a permanent copy of something like Microsoft Office.<p>For businesses, they were buying support contracts anyway, SaaS makes even more sense for them.<p>So, yes, that’s why everyone is SaaS. These businesses that operate on the model know it’s successful and more lucrative than one-time sales.<p>You might hate it, but the balance sheet doesn’t.
dt3ft将近 3 年前
Software is expensive to make. It can take years to build and if the price tag resembled true cost of software, very few would be ready to pay the full price. Subscription makes software available to the masses.
评论 #32316270 未加载
评论 #32317776 未加载
a_c将近 3 年前
To me this article is a convoluted way of saying don&#x27;t sell useless stuff. I agree. But also feels shallow.
评论 #32285599 未加载
civilized将近 3 年前
One reason to hate on subscriptions: I can&#x27;t tell what the hell is charging me and why from my credit card and bank records. What is AVUT**aidurhbwkansj and why did it charge me $19.99? Sometimes I have to guess based on the transaction amount.<p>Do these businesses want me to find out who&#x27;s charging me by doing a chargeback and seeing who gets mad? Can there be some better standards for how transactions are documented in financial records?
评论 #32338786 未加载
alanfranz将近 3 年前
One thing the article seems to miss out: price.<p>Some subscriptions are horribly expensive. $8&#x2F;month for something I’d be happy to pay $10&#x2F;year.<p>That’s the real problem. A lot of services come out at $50&#x2F;$60 per year with minimal improvements over an OSS or ad-supported tool.
评论 #32286057 未加载
评论 #32286104 未加载
BonoboIO将近 3 年前
I don&#x27;t know anybody who pays for adobe products beside some professional photographers&#x2F;artists.<p>The support is nonexistent and their pricing is consumer unfriendly. You can only make yearly subscriptions and even the student prices are high.<p>Acrobat for 180€ a year and it crashes one in 10 times when I convert some things and takes all the edits with it to the grave. Ridiculous.
评论 #32286737 未加载
评论 #32286676 未加载
评论 #32287116 未加载
brnt将近 3 年前
Startup culture, the name already says it, is about attracting investors and huge profits.<p>Starting a software business, the sort that used to be based on the shareware model, or one time fees, can be enough to sustain a small or one person team. But that&#x27;s not enough for the startup crowd, they&#x27;re looking to be millionaires.
paskozdilar将近 3 年前
Subscription services, in my opinion, is the pinnacle of a disposable society. Everything is ephemereal, nothing lasts, and people are dependent on their corporate overlords to bring &quot;updates&quot;, which are often nothing more than a stream of ugly hacks working around the rotten core.
jmyeet将近 3 年前
Evernote is worth mentioning. There was a time when everyone used it but really it wasn&#x27;t that special. I wonder if they had any buyout offers they rejected and now regret?<p>I&#x27;m with the authoro on most of this. It&#x27;s gym memberships, basically. The ideal customer is one who never uses the facilities but auto-renews forever. But software is an interesting exception.<p>IMHO subscription is the best monetization model for software. Why? Because it aligns incentives between the consumer and the seller. Many people would rather pay $5&#x2F;month than $150 upfront. It means the company (generally) is constantly updating and fixing it. With shrinkwrap software, there&#x27;s a direct incentive to declare a new major version, sell an upgrade and stop fixing&#x2F;updating the old version.<p>Adobe used to do this with the RAW camera plugin for Photoshop. New camera came out? It was only added to a new version of the RAW plugin. That RAW plugin for no reason whatsoever required the latest version of Photoshop.<p>The negatives about software subscriptions here are really negatives about Adobe. Adobe does use dark patterns to get renewals, only offers annual subscriptions and probably charges too much. The price here is off. You can get Photoshop&#x2F;Lightroom for (IIRC) $10&#x2F;month. The complete collection is $50&#x2F;month.<p>The standard counterexample here is Jetbrains. Monthly or annual billing, lots of notifications about upcoming renewals, decreasing pricing for long-term customers, reasonably priced personal licenses and you get to keep the version you had when you stop paying indefinitely.<p>My point is that software subscriptions aren&#x27;t inherently bad. Adboe is bad.
评论 #32285646 未加载
charcircuit将近 3 年前
&gt;Lack of customer retention. If a user pays upfront for a product, they will feel compelled to use it daily to get their money’s worth<p>No, if anything it&#x27;s the opposite since you don&#x27;t want this month&#x27;s payment to go to waste. Although I don&#x27;t have the data, I wouldn&#x27;t be surprised if consumers actually don&#x27;t care that much about &quot;getting their money&#x27;s worth&quot; for most products.
stavros将近 3 年前
I have half a mind to start a database SaaS so apps can connect to it. So, you buy your Amazing Notes phone app for $9.95 or whatever, connect it to my paid service, and you have all your syncing&#x2F;backend needs on one service, paid once, instead of for every app you buy.<p>Probably wouldn&#x27;t be very popular with apps, because now they can&#x27;t sell a subscription, but it&#x27;s an idea.
评论 #32285636 未加载
skilled将近 3 年前
You know what I hate even more… it’s <i>limits</i> to subscription models.<p>This year Ahrefs, a popular marketing tool that indexes the web, changed their pricing model to impose a strict 3,000 token limit on report generation. That limit used to be 1,500 and reset on a weekly basis. This is for the $200&#x2F;month plan.<p>Now if you “accidentally” use all 3,000 reports you are essentially locked out of the platform, like I was.<p>What that means is that you can no longer use the <i>export</i> feature, which left me with a million+ unused rows.<p>I had been their customer before, and I was told they did send out an email about the new changes (just not to people who weren’t active subscribers), and their official blog post was very sparse on appropriate wording that the report limit was changed so drastically.<p>Was it my fault in the end? In more than one way, yes. But does that make me hate this approach less? Not in the slightest.
civilized将近 3 年前
I assumed everything was going to SaaS hell and was pleasantly surprised to find I could still buy Microsoft Office when I recently got a new Mac.<p>Office for Mac wasn&#x27;t great, especially in 2008 when I first got it, but it still gave me a good 13 years of use. Given a purchase price of $200 and a subscription price of $65&#x2F;year for Office365, I&#x27;m very confident I get a better deal with the one-time purchase, even though I know I will probably eventually need to purchase again. (The fact that I don&#x27;t get low quality add-ons like OneDrive is an added bonus.)<p>Constant maintenance of software is overrated. Most features being added these days bring negative value.
nunez将近 3 年前
&gt; They don’t want to see another monthly number chipping away at their bank balances month after month, year after year.<p>They don&#x27;t?<p>My uneducated take?<p>- People won&#x27;t buy anything full boat that they can buy monthly - People prefer monthly payments - People don&#x27;t actually track their monthly payments, because generally people are bad at money stuff<p>It&#x27;s not an accident that BNPL companies like Affirm and apparently Apple now are mooning right now<p>Personally? I really like software subscriptions. They are zero commitment, auto-updating, and usually a good value relative to the price. When I&#x27;m done with them, I stop paying. Easy.<p>Amazon Subscribe and Save is a perfect example. The items I get that I&#x27;d usually skip on getting until I absolutely had to (because work and life get in the way) come in bulk every three to six months when I need them. That&#x27;s incredibly valuable for me.<p>Most of y&#x27;all who are for paying full boat are speaking from a privileged position where full boat isn&#x27;t much. For a lot of people, Office 365 with Word, Excel and PowerPoint for $6.99&#x2F;mo is a much more achieveable than the $99 for a single version with feature-toggled restrictions (and better than dealing with cracks).<p>Then again, I think that ownership in general is overrated, so I realize that I&#x27;m a contrarian on this
rvz将近 3 年前
You will own nothing and you will continue to be very happy with the subscription service griftopia.
Existenceblinks将近 3 年前
Unrelated:<p>Dear customers: I hate demanding of free plan, self-host and open source. My family is starving.
varispeed将近 3 年前
When I had a gig at a start up, I remember the owner couldn&#x27;t stop banging about subscriptions. It was the main priority, how to get people to subscribe and anything else was an afterthought. The main idea was that even if people stop using the product, a good % will forget to unsubscribe. I remember something like 30% of users were people who subscribed, used the product for a month or so and then never unsubscribed.
hnarn将近 3 年前
I have no problem understanding the logic behind it but I <i>really</i> hate being forced into a subscription only to cancel it immediately to get what I actually wanted: one month.<p>If your customers only want one month, sell them one month and be done with it. If you’re selling something good, it will be missed, and if you’re not maybe try doing that instead of building a business on the hope that customers will forget about you.
clement_b将近 3 年前
Yes, subscriptions for everything isn&#x27;t good for consumers, but, if it was &#x27;easy&#x27; to sell software as a one off before the cloud, it&#x27;s a bit harder now with all the costs associated with cloud features such as everlasting storage, security, sync, compute, you name it. How do you sell something that consumes resources continuously at a one-off cost?<p>SaaS can only work with a continuous revenue stream because the software provider has to keep delivering the service, and doesn&#x27;t know how long it will be necessary to do so. LTV predictions are based on the assumption that customers churn, but what if they don&#x27;t? If you charge the LTV as a one off but got that wrong, you&#x27;re out of business.<p>With proper software, that you install on your device, you power everything, therefore one off licences can work.<p>There is also the whole way to ship software that has to change for a shift away from subscription, but are consumers ready to wait for yearly releases and pay for these ? Are consumers ready to install software again? Not so sure!
评论 #32285900 未加载
评论 #32287082 未加载
lewisjoe将近 3 年前
This boils down to simple economics. Most softwares built by startups run over the cloud (which incur recurring costs to the startup) and most softwares are not just a one-time delivered unit like a physical object. They need patches and continuous improvements, which means it needs a supply of human intellect (which is again a recurring cost in terms of salaries)<p>The challenge is how would you reconcile this underlying costs with a one-time-payment? It&#x27;s a tougher problem than it seems, if yoy include other variables in the equation like inflation, volatile nature of softwares , etc.<p>Nonetheless, this has to be solved. I strongly believe a simple pricing model that makes instant sense - is an important part of the UX. And a one-time payment like buying a physical product is the simplest of all.
orbit7将近 3 年前
I think in some cases having a core paid&#x2F;free owned software is good, then paying subscriptions for extra features within it. Additionally blockchain software is new area for example holding purchased tokens providing liquidity to the software company is another model to be explored.<p>But some software just due to the interconnected nature of it needs to be subscription based to cover the cost of running it before even getting into the ongoing development, bug fixes etc. In many cases I&#x27;d sooner pay for well maintained software than something under funded and as such not maintained. Subscriptions is opex vs capex meaning paying less than what a lot of software would be affordable to buy as a one off purchase at this point.
togs将近 3 年前
For software, the subscription model makes sense to me. It costs money to develop a working product, then it costs money to maintain it, and, in the case of cloud-hosted software, it costs money to serve it.<p>The subscription model benefits the consumer because it incentivizes use of the software. For example, suppose I want to learn web design. If I subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud, I am now committed to use it because if I do not I am wasting money.<p>The subscription model benefits the consumer by reducing the up-front cost to use software. For example, Adobe Photoshop used to cost hundreds of dollars before use, and now it costs $20 (per month).<p>I suggest that we, as consumers, may need to reconcile with the cost of labor.
评论 #32286776 未加载
arnklint将近 3 年前
How come you published this article on a subscription based service?
fairity将近 3 年前
This article is a very long rant that ultimately doesn’t make any useful claims.<p>Of course subscription models aren’t for every business. Of course customers would prefer to not have to subscribe. What’s your point?<p>If you’re saying that subscription is a bad decision for the products referenced in your article, I’m afraid that you’re almost definitely wrong. These big businesses have tested their pricing models and know that subscription maximizes LTV per prospective customer, which is ultimately what matters to them.
nickjj将近 3 年前
For technical learning material do you prefer a SAAS model where you pay $10-20 &#x2F; month for all-in access to short isolated videos in a related subject (potentially ~4 new videos a month) or dropping $50-150 one time for a course that could be anywhere from 3-15 hours long?<p>It&#x27;s kind of comparing apples to oranges but as someone who has made courses for a while I&#x27;ve always thought about the idea of doing weekly screencasts instead. HN is one of the best places to ask this sort of question.
评论 #32287546 未加载
评论 #32286545 未加载
atoav将近 3 年前
Not every service, not every software lends itself to the subscription system.<p>E.g. if you sell an obscure format converter that I need once every year (but then I really need it) it should not be an subscription. I would gladly toss 20 Euros at the developer for something like this once. What I will not do is do any subscription, just because it takes up space in my mind perpetually.
schnulller将近 3 年前
Everybody hates subscription services. It&#x27;s called generating a steady and long revenue stream and to et rid of that you will have to burn the world down.
评论 #32285755 未加载
Simon_O_Rourke将近 3 年前
Having worked in plenty of startups I know the critical need to have (a more than fair chance) your subscription customer is going to give you money in the future. MRR is the king of metrics, and without it most companies would be sunk.<p>However, for guys like Netflix or for those companies that ship cooking ingredients and recipes to your door, I would happily be gouged by them for one or two on demand purchases.
lifeisstillgood将近 3 年前
I am pretty sure there is a business that can be built over managing all these subscriptions - something like European OpenBanking but that includes credit cards - and you just get a dashboard showing you all the subscriptions you have (that will be ticket shock) and then you can turn them off as needed.<p>Not sure if credit cards are in openbanking but that would be the core of it
评论 #32286088 未加载
cercatrova将近 3 年前
As a bootstrapped developer though, I love subscriptions. They offer consistent and predictable cashflow with which I can hire other developers and employees. A one time purchase, unless you have data [0] on how it&#x27;s going, is less predictable.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;remoteok.com&#x2F;open" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;remoteok.com&#x2F;open</a>
Flankk将近 3 年前
I agree completely. Taking more but giving the same in return. What companies lose is brand loyalty. Startups want to be Apple but plan for sprints instead of a marathon. Spotify and Netflix work as a subscription model because the model provides <i>more</i> value to customers. The artists get screwed over but I digress.
hammyhavoc将近 3 年前
Offer me self-hostable licenses. Simple as that. Offer everyone else the cloud with a subscription by default.<p>The per-seat subscription model for a lot of these services doesn&#x27;t make any sense when you own the hardware already, or can roll it out in the cloud and only pay for what you use with elastic models.
hendersoon将近 3 年前
My solution is as follows:<p>1) I refuse to subscribe to apps, and 2) I complain about it on the internet<p>Thanks for helping out with numero dos, friend.
archagon将近 3 年前
Eventually, I imagine that open source alternatives to subscription productivity&#x2F;creative software will get good enough (see Blender) that customers held hostage by these companies will migrate over en masse.<p>Personally, I find most of these subscriptions offensive, so I gladly look forward to this future.
tgsovlerkhgsel将近 3 年前
I think the simple reason why we have so many subscription-only services is that few people would buy it at the LTVs that these companies hope to (and often do successfully) extract via the subscription.<p>And people who see through it hate it because they realize how ridiculous the actual price is.
irrational将近 3 年前
Yeah, this whole subscription thing sucks. I refuse to engage. The only thing I have a subscription to is Disney+ because the wife wants it for the kids. I have no other software or service or device subscriptions. If nobody has a pay once option I do without.
dgudkov将近 3 年前
Partly, enterprise customers are driving the shift to subscriptions. They prefer opex to capex.
Axien将近 3 年前
The problem with subscriptions is the difficulty in canceling. To join XM Radio or the Wall Street Journal is quick and easy. To cancel requires an hour long phone call navigating through high pressure sales.
balderdash将近 3 年前
The author alluded to it - but the pendulum will swing in the other direction as churn rates increase driven by lack of perceived value being diminished and stretch household subscription budgets
nikanj将近 3 年前
We don’t build them for you, we build them for the VCs. They love them.
K0balt将近 3 年前
We get that subscription is more lucrative. But offer an option to purchase the current version at a higher price, or use the jet brains model of new versions as subscription.
评论 #32285958 未加载
end_of_line将近 3 年前
&#x27;Lifetime&#x27; one time payments end up being converted into monthly subscriptions. Always... Best example is Couchsurfing.<p>They broke the contract. The contract is the contract.
radiojasper将近 3 年前
They hate subscription boxes, but surely they added an affiliate link to one said subscription box in their article and then spammed it on HN for more traction.
评论 #32286888 未加载
yummybear将近 3 年前
How do you feel about a non-renewable subscription, i.e. pay for 12 months access, and then having to re-pay at the end of the cycle to restore access?
lazyeye将近 3 年前
More and more tics wanting to attach themselves to our financial bloodstreams..
ChrisMarshallNY将近 3 年前
I have come to be OK with <i>some</i> subscription models, but not all.<p>I think SaaS, and even many platform applications, are OK as subs.<p>&quot;Buy once&quot; platform app models are subs, anyway. It is unreasonable to expect a software developer to keep a package updated through many new operating systems. Some systems, like MS Windows (and, I suspect -but don&#x27;t know for sure- Linux), do a great job of retrofitting, so older apps can often keep going, but most mobile systems won&#x27;t. Apple is in the middle. It supports a ways back, but will deprecate features that older apps may require.<p>I used to buy the Adobe CS suite, yearly. Each year, I would get an upgrade, as the software would usually get new features that I wanted. I suspect that, eventually, the version I had, would stop working, but I never let it age that long. I probably could have gotten away with reupping every two, or even three, years.<p>I like the new sub model. I get access to every single Adobe app, at a lower price than what I paid for my yearly upgrades (but more than if I did it bi-yearly). This allows me to do something like install inDesign, if someone sends me an ID file. I don&#x27;t want to keep the app around, otherwise.<p>SaaS is basically built around a &quot;service,&quot; and &quot;services,&quot; by definition, are subs. If I subscribe to a newspaper, that paper hits my doorstep every weekend, until I stop paying the bill. That&#x27;s an ancient model, that has not changed; nor does it need to.<p>Hardware is another matter. I can see having a piece of hardware that could benefit from regular firmware updates, but I think it should keep running at spec, with a single firmware setup, despite new versions coming up.<p>I&#x27;m also pretty cynical about hardware that is sold with &quot;lifetime upgrades.&quot; It&#x27;s been my experience that &quot;lifetime,&quot; is actually only a couple of years, before the firmware stops being upgraded. As long as the device keeps working with the last firmware, then that&#x27;s basically what I paid for, anyway. If the device is &quot;time-bombed,&quot; though, that&#x27;s just <i>evil</i>.<p>If the device works, but uses a SaaS subscription, then I would think that the manufacturer needs to figure out how to keep supporting the device for as long as possible, and have some way to transition the device to “standalone” operation; especially if the company is going out of business, or phasing out support for the hardware. This would probably require legal backing, against corporate officers, personally, as corporations can get off the hook, fairly easily.<p>Also, I think we should do away with &quot;lifetime&quot; anything. I think the expected lifespan of stuff (like firmware updates and SaaS support) should be spelled out at purchase time, and legally enforced.
ekianjo将近 3 年前
Is the author publishing this on medium to troll his point?
kozikow将近 3 年前
Dear users: but our VCs love subscription services.
Omavel将近 3 年前
You have choice not to use them, init?
boffinism将近 3 年前
Dear customers: we know. But our businesses are viable as subscription services, and not as one-off or ad-hoc puchase models. We know because we tried them. So we&#x27;re catering to the people who are OK with buying a subscription because there are enough of them. Sorry if that doesn&#x27;t suit you.
评论 #32285640 未加载
评论 #32286015 未加载
评论 #32285635 未加载
评论 #32285692 未加载
评论 #32285729 未加载
评论 #32285913 未加载
评论 #32286289 未加载
评论 #32286945 未加载
评论 #32285727 未加载
评论 #32285731 未加载
评论 #32285673 未加载
评论 #32285621 未加载
评论 #32286371 未加载
haunter将近 3 年前
Rich coming from a blog that is on Medium. Once you run out of free access you have to sub. And even worse it&#x27;s one of the rare subscription services where you don&#x27;t even see the price on the landing page without making an account first <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;membership" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;membership</a>
评论 #32285861 未加载
评论 #32286378 未加载
parkingrift将近 3 年前
You can throw absolutely all of the blame on MBA and finance culture. Businesses routinely sell for 7-20x annual recurring revenue. However, non-recurring revenue is worth maybe 2-3x.<p>It’s the same story with raising funds. If you need capital you can raise substantially more for substantially less if you have recurring revenue.<p>It would be more valuable for a business owner to take a $1M non-recurring revenue business and convert it into a $500k recurring revenue business, stabilize, and then sell.<p>If you think that’s asinine… well, you’re right. Something is deeply wrong with MBA and finance culture in America. We have truly lost our minds when it comes to valuations.
评论 #32287032 未加载
评论 #32286381 未加载