6 ms·

Are these benefits not eroding? Pressure on subscription models comes from both the public getting herd immunity against the underlying dark pattern and competi

Are these benefits not eroding? Pressure on subscription models comes from both the public getting herd immunity against the underlying dark pattern and competitors chasing a diminishing supply of people to trick as world + dog has adopted the tactic. In this particular case, with a privacy tailwind, it will be unsurprising if it ends up increasing their sales.

ryanbrunner 4y ago
I think saying subscriptions are a dark pattern is going a bit far. In the case where you're offering an ongoing service that requires a cost to service, a subscription model is completely appropriate and in the best interest of both the subscriber and the issuer. For sure there's some abuse of the model where you're selling something that should be a one-time item, but that's not the case here, and Mullvad is providing an ongoing service (and still billing by month / year / etc. for the service, just without automatic renewals).
- 3wolf 4y ago
  Yeah, I'd say the term dark pattern only applies when services make it unnecessarily difficult to cancel your subscription. cough cough...NY Times
- lolc 4y ago
  To me, a dark pattern is when the service doesn't announce in advance when the subscription is going to renew.
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    These emails always annoy me. To each their own I guess.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I'd be willing to say that subscriptions are a dark pattern when they don't automatically stop if you stop using them. A fundamental part of healthy business relationships is value for value. E.g., you give me money, I give you a sandwich, you take the sandwich, eat it, and are happy with it. If you keep paying me for sandwiches but I don't give them to you, that's not healthy. Ditto if I put them on the counter but you stop taking them. Personally, I think there should be a law that all service/software subscriptions auto-suspend after 30 days of non-use. Because right now there's a big incentive for businesses to get you to sign up for things they think you're not going to use, and to keep on charging you even though they know you're not using it.
  - tomnipotent 4y ago
    What you're asking for is a la carte access while still getting discounted subscription pricing, pushing all the risk onto the business. Consume as much as you want, but pay nothing when you don't. Sounds like a crap deal for the business.
    - roblabla 4y ago
      And what businesses are hoping for are users that are paying without actually using their service. Produce nothing, but get paid every month. Sounds like a crap deal for the users.
      - tomnipotent 4y ago
        > And what businesses are hoping for are users that are paying without actually using their service All of them, from the local gym to Dropbox to Spotify. Subscription businesses can't make money if every consumer costs more to service than the revenue they generate. There's even an official accounting term for it, breakage. > Produce nothing, but get paid every month Failure to consume and get value from a subscription is your fault, not the business that fulfilled its obligation.
        wpietri 4y ago
        I am amazed that you can't see that approach as exploitative, and that your last line is victim blaming. If a company can't exist without tricking people into paying for something they get no value out of, maybe it shouldn't exist.
        tomnipotent 4y ago
        > can't see that approach as exploitative You're getting all-you-can-eat from the business for a fixed price in exchange for predictable revenue as opposed to pay-as-you-go. That you think that's exploitative just tells me you don't understand the business model. You want to have your cake and eat it, too.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
I don't think so. Us privacy and control freaks abhor subscriptions, the mainstream just shrugs and pays what they're told to pay. I can even see them adopting rental models for a lot of stuff we purchase outright now (the "you will own nothing and you will be happy" great reset promoted by the world economic forum). I think this is pretty exploitative but I'm pretty sure I am in a minority. Obviously big business loves this because they have to do almost nothing and still get guaranteed income. But to me their arguments sound too much like blackmail "With this model there is incentive for us to make longer-lasting products which is good for the environment". Well, sure but if you actually cared about the environment instead of money you'd be doing that right now. Why do we have to pay them more for less in order for them to do this? To me this really sounds like a "pay us what we want or we'll mess up this environment of yours even more" extortion scheme. The older generation is more against it but they tend to not trust tech very much anyway. They're not the ones buying a new phone every year, they use it for many years and even get it fixed when it breaks.
- mechanical_bear 4y ago
  > you will own nothing and you will be happy Too easy and lazy to blame this on some grand conspiracy. Reality is much more complicated, and cuts to heart of human behavior.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    Conspiracy no. But I don't like where the world is headed. Investors are demanding ever more markup on products and services. Nobody is happy with a 10% markup anymore in electronics. There seems to be a constant flow of money to the ultra-rich away from the poorer people, and this is something that has been constantly going on for the last decades. Because the squeeze is finally starting to hit the mainstream of the richer countries. Even the US is starting to see instability from this. I think part of this is the free market which only really works on "MORE". More turnover, more customers, more products YoY. If you make a loss or invest in something for the common good a company isn't just frowned upon, they are putting themselves at liability of due diligence lawsuits. Most of the societal and environmental problems we are seeing stem from this, in my opinion. We need to fix the system before it's too late, not pamper to it. I don't think there is a dark "SPECTRE" style gathering going on at Davos, no. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. However I do see there is zero incentive to improving the status quo if it doesn't make some rich people much richer yet again. This is why I see the WEF as a 'bad' entity, for promoting such things which are clearly undesirable. It's a very one-sided image. For me as a tinkerer and maker the idea of renting my stuff and not being allowed to improve or repair it, is absolutely unthinkable and something that must be fought tooth and nail.
nl 4y ago
Subscriptions aren't (in general terms) a dark pattern.

ryanbrunner 4y ago

I think saying subscriptions are a dark pattern is going a bit far. In the case where you're offering an ongoing service that requires a cost to service, a subscription model is completely appropriate and in the best interest of both the subscriber and the issuer. For sure there's some abuse of the model where you're selling something that should be a one-time item, but that's not the case here, and Mullvad is providing an ongoing service (and still billing by month / year / etc. for the service, just without automatic renewals).

3wolf 4y ago
Yeah, I'd say the term dark pattern only applies when services make it unnecessarily difficult to cancel your subscription. cough cough...NY Times
lolc 4y ago
To me, a dark pattern is when the service doesn't announce in advance when the subscription is going to renew.
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  These emails always annoy me. To each their own I guess.
wpietri 4y ago
I'd be willing to say that subscriptions are a dark pattern when they don't automatically stop if you stop using them. A fundamental part of healthy business relationships is value for value. E.g., you give me money, I give you a sandwich, you take the sandwich, eat it, and are happy with it. If you keep paying me for sandwiches but I don't give them to you, that's not healthy. Ditto if I put them on the counter but you stop taking them. Personally, I think there should be a law that all service/software subscriptions auto-suspend after 30 days of non-use. Because right now there's a big incentive for businesses to get you to sign up for things they think you're not going to use, and to keep on charging you even though they know you're not using it.
- tomnipotent 4y ago
  What you're asking for is a la carte access while still getting discounted subscription pricing, pushing all the risk onto the business. Consume as much as you want, but pay nothing when you don't. Sounds like a crap deal for the business.
  - roblabla 4y ago
    And what businesses are hoping for are users that are paying without actually using their service. Produce nothing, but get paid every month. Sounds like a crap deal for the users.
    - tomnipotent 4y ago
      > And what businesses are hoping for are users that are paying without actually using their service All of them, from the local gym to Dropbox to Spotify. Subscription businesses can't make money if every consumer costs more to service than the revenue they generate. There's even an official accounting term for it, breakage. > Produce nothing, but get paid every month Failure to consume and get value from a subscription is your fault, not the business that fulfilled its obligation.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        I am amazed that you can't see that approach as exploitative, and that your last line is victim blaming. If a company can't exist without tricking people into paying for something they get no value out of, maybe it shouldn't exist.
        tomnipotent 4y ago
        > can't see that approach as exploitative You're getting all-you-can-eat from the business for a fixed price in exchange for predictable revenue as opposed to pay-as-you-go. That you think that's exploitative just tells me you don't understand the business model. You want to have your cake and eat it, too.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

I don't think so. Us privacy and control freaks abhor subscriptions, the mainstream just shrugs and pays what they're told to pay. I can even see them adopting rental models for a lot of stuff we purchase outright now (the "you will own nothing and you will be happy" great reset promoted by the world economic forum). I think this is pretty exploitative but I'm pretty sure I am in a minority. Obviously big business loves this because they have to do almost nothing and still get guaranteed income. But to me their arguments sound too much like blackmail "With this model there is incentive for us to make longer-lasting products which is good for the environment". Well, sure but if you actually cared about the environment instead of money you'd be doing that right now. Why do we have to pay them more for less in order for them to do this? To me this really sounds like a "pay us what we want or we'll mess up this environment of yours even more" extortion scheme. The older generation is more against it but they tend to not trust tech very much anyway. They're not the ones buying a new phone every year, they use it for many years and even get it fixed when it breaks.

mechanical_bear 4y ago
> you will own nothing and you will be happy Too easy and lazy to blame this on some grand conspiracy. Reality is much more complicated, and cuts to heart of human behavior.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Conspiracy no. But I don't like where the world is headed. Investors are demanding ever more markup on products and services. Nobody is happy with a 10% markup anymore in electronics. There seems to be a constant flow of money to the ultra-rich away from the poorer people, and this is something that has been constantly going on for the last decades. Because the squeeze is finally starting to hit the mainstream of the richer countries. Even the US is starting to see instability from this. I think part of this is the free market which only really works on "MORE". More turnover, more customers, more products YoY. If you make a loss or invest in something for the common good a company isn't just frowned upon, they are putting themselves at liability of due diligence lawsuits. Most of the societal and environmental problems we are seeing stem from this, in my opinion. We need to fix the system before it's too late, not pamper to it. I don't think there is a dark "SPECTRE" style gathering going on at Davos, no. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. However I do see there is zero incentive to improving the status quo if it doesn't make some rich people much richer yet again. This is why I see the WEF as a 'bad' entity, for promoting such things which are clearly undesirable. It's a very one-sided image. For me as a tinkerer and maker the idea of renting my stuff and not being allowed to improve or repair it, is absolutely unthinkable and something that must be fought tooth and nail.

nl 4y ago

Subscriptions aren't (in general terms) a dark pattern.