4 ms·
The terms that surround nonpayment seem to lend themselves well to "stop paying in the winter when you put it away, resume in spring".
by throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The terms that surround nonpayment seem to lend themselves well to "stop paying in the winter when you put it away, resume in spring".
- jiveturkey 5y agoYep! That's one reason I find it a completely fair model. Pay for usage. If you believe that the technology will get better (as I would) and you won't even accumulate $400 of usage before. you'll want to replace it, then subscription seems the way to go. (say you ride 6 months a year, that would be ~ 6 years). It's interesting if the company actually makes less money per unit this way (total revenue per vest is less, esp after considering the cost of managing the subscription, nevermind the eventual hack which will give owners free lifetime service), but because the price looks like "$400" they sell a lot more, seriously undercutting competitors. And lastly, by being a subscription they can claim recurring revenue which is great for growth hacking. According to crunchbase they took a seed round, so this does make sense.