3 ms·

For me, those two points are inseparable. But I’ve also spent the last several years of my career focusing on maximizing profits within consumer subscribeables.

For me, those two points are inseparable. But I’ve also spent the last several years of my career focusing on maximizing profits within consumer subscribeables... There are only so many ways to make money: ads, once off charges, term payments, and recurring charges. A consumer license to use vs physical ownership is incredibly interesting. Buying a Mario Brothers cartridge for the original Nintendo vs games delivered online. You could see a compelling case for the Nintendo Switch to offer a subscription service giving access to X games every month. I don’t find either right or wrong. They just “are” so to speak.

nixpulvis 8y ago
The best example I have right now is with music... I am ALWAYS going to want to be able to listen to my library, it's not really fair to assume I should have to pay monthly for it for the rest of my life, but for every day I don't buy the album and I listen to it on AM or Spotify, I'm in effect paying for a redundant service. I get the difficulty finding ways to make money, but we are pigeonholing ourselves into a model that is against the best interest of the users.
- sturgill 8y ago
  I’d disagree in that you can buy an MP3 and listen forever using whatever device. But Spotify isn’t required to sell you MP3s (or guarantee perpetual playback). And, it turns out, that people (in aggregate) really like the Spotify model. One fixed cost to consume all the music you want vs buying entire albums to listen to the 2-3 songs that were decent. There are still two markets in music. That’s not the case with most online services, but I’m comfortable with that.