4 ms·
I would agree if not for the fact that their money-back policy is so lenient (and easy to use) that it feels like you're not paying up-front at all. As such, I
by mercer 11y ago
I would agree if not for the fact that their money-back policy is so lenient (and easy to use) that it feels like you're not paying up-front at all. As such, I much prefer the iTunes model over the Spotify model, as I'd much rather occasionally click on the 'money back' button than pay for stuff I don't read.
- noir-york 11y agoIts lenient, for now. But I view it as a workaround to the no-mental-cost of an all you can eat. With a fixed-monthly model you do not ever need to think about asking for your money back. Let alone asking for it, even if its a click. A fixed monthly cost is in the interest of everyone: by removing the "barrier to entry" of an article it removes any friction for someone to explore new content and new sources. New publishers win, new authors win and all users win.
- ghaff 11y ago>A fixed monthly cost is in the interest of everyone Subscriptions are only great for users if they get enough value out of them--otherwise they're just another monthly/annual money leak. For example, I go back and forth on the streaming music services. I'll use them to explore some new music or play something I want to hear but don't own--but then I'll be traveling or otherwise occupied and won't use them for 2 or 3 weeks.
- mercer 11y agoExactly. Ideally I'd see both. Subscriptions for those who make enough use of Blendle and on a consistent basis, and micropayments for people like me who will occasionally read an article that interests them.