4 ms·

I don't immediately understand what this solves over say patreon, which has a lot lower fees (10% + 2.5% for CC fees... holy crap). Whats the value add here? An

I don't immediately understand what this solves over say patreon, which has a lot lower fees (10% + 2.5% for CC fees... holy crap). Whats the value add here? And for publishing text? Is there DRM involved? It feels like you're just charging for a paywall and a mailchimp list... maybe thats enough, but given the amount of failures in the space, it feels like just another to go on top of the pile. Maybe its the right mix, and they have some big plans? One issue from the Terms - if you post something publicly, they can keep it published and licensed to them forever, even after you delete your account. I'd think for such a high price, and a high emphasis on content creator control, you'd not take away the legal rights to delete public posts. Also pretty disappointed at the arbitration agreement and unilateral terms of use updates (they can update them at any time, and if you don't agree you will be kicked off the platform). [edit: its certainly easy to see the value of something like this existing - just trying to understand why this is different than the others]

jpalomaki 7y ago
Network effect? They could promote your newsletter to people who are already paying for something related. If people are already registered on Substack and have payment method in place then onboarding is smooth.
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
Is there any site that doesn't allow for unilateral terms of use updates? I'm not being snarky; I genuinely haven't seen one, and I'm not sure what the alternative would be. "We're changing our terms of use, but if you don't agree with our changes, you can keep following the old rules you originally agreed to" sounds like it'd be a nightmare to keep track of in practice.
- taurath 7y ago
  I think its more important when you're putting something on a platform that is publishing your work. Having control of your work is paramount - this is what they're saying is one of the benefits of the platform. That they can effectively change the "license" to creators work at any time and kick them off the platform if they disagree seems like a large amount of rights to give away. They could for instance have a generalized terms of service that does NOT cover works licensing, and works licensing be its own agreement which is not subject to change except with more proper controls than an auto-agree if you use the platform any time after they unilaterally update. Who owns the audience and content at the end of the day? Legally, its still the content creators copyright, but with an unlimited irrevocable license Substack de-facto is co-owner. The audience is entirely built on their platform - the email list looks like it'll be owned entirely by Substack since its through their platform - no mention of this in the ToS. I doubt there'll be an export feature. They may legally protect their rights to "your" subscribers.
jokull 7y ago
It’s an integrated solution. Patreon does bring a blog but this one is much better IMHO. It’s very well done.
joegahona 7y ago
> It feels like you're just charging for a paywall and a mailchimp list... maybe thats enough, but given the amount of failures in the space, it feels like just another to go on top of the pile. What are the other paid-email failures from the pile?
eudora 7y ago
I find the UI good but not worth that much of a cut. Maybe this is for people who can't roll their own solution.

jpalomaki 7y ago

Network effect? They could promote your newsletter to people who are already paying for something related. If people are already registered on Substack and have payment method in place then onboarding is smooth.

chipotle_coyote 7y ago

Is there any site that doesn't allow for unilateral terms of use updates? I'm not being snarky; I genuinely haven't seen one, and I'm not sure what the alternative would be. "We're changing our terms of use, but if you don't agree with our changes, you can keep following the old rules you originally agreed to" sounds like it'd be a nightmare to keep track of in practice.

taurath 7y ago
I think its more important when you're putting something on a platform that is publishing your work. Having control of your work is paramount - this is what they're saying is one of the benefits of the platform. That they can effectively change the "license" to creators work at any time and kick them off the platform if they disagree seems like a large amount of rights to give away. They could for instance have a generalized terms of service that does NOT cover works licensing, and works licensing be its own agreement which is not subject to change except with more proper controls than an auto-agree if you use the platform any time after they unilaterally update. Who owns the audience and content at the end of the day? Legally, its still the content creators copyright, but with an unlimited irrevocable license Substack de-facto is co-owner. The audience is entirely built on their platform - the email list looks like it'll be owned entirely by Substack since its through their platform - no mention of this in the ToS. I doubt there'll be an export feature. They may legally protect their rights to "your" subscribers.

jokull 7y ago

It’s an integrated solution. Patreon does bring a blog but this one is much better IMHO. It’s very well done.

joegahona 7y ago

> It feels like you're just charging for a paywall and a mailchimp list... maybe thats enough, but given the amount of failures in the space, it feels like just another to go on top of the pile. What are the other paid-email failures from the pile?

eudora 7y ago

I find the UI good but not worth that much of a cut. Maybe this is for people who can't roll their own solution.