3 ms·
You would think lump sum is better. Monetizing sooner means you can put that money into other investments sooner that will generate greater return for you overa
by asdff 4y ago
You would think lump sum is better. Monetizing sooner means you can put that money into other investments sooner that will generate greater return for you overall than having it dripped out to you at a fixed schedule.
- sofixa 4y agoNo, because the lump sum can't be depended upon, it's unpredictable. Will you have 50 buyers this month or none at all because it's holiday season? Or maybe you'll saturate your market niche. You can't plan anything ahead.
- asdff 4y agoYou can say the same for whether or not you will net a subscriber next month or have cancellations. What I'm saying is that if your license is priced correctly, that revenue the consumer pays up front can go into a fund that exists to perpetually support this software indpendent of having to maintain an appeased subscriber base in perpetuity. It's this idea of having a growing pile of money that exist because of what already happened, versus having constant revenue that must continue to be depended upon indefinitely.
- Gigachad 4y agoIt’s much easier to get users to stay subscribed than it is to get them to actively buy every period.
- asdff 4y agoYou don't need to get them to buy every period if they paid a lump sum up front. That's the whole point. Money is capable of growing for you, so take advantage of that fact in your business model and unshackle yourself from subscriber dependency.
- xboxnolifes 4y agoIn the perfect world where every monthly subscriber would be willing to pay 20-100 times (or more) the amount for a one-time, up-front purchase, sure. But that's not reality.
- fingerlocks 4y agoI mean, that's how software used to be? Let's exclude anything cloud-based and assume no marginal operating cost of running purchased software. Adobe Photoshop cost around $1000 in the 90s, and now it's like $25 a month? Back then you paid a discount to upgrade to latest version, and now it's generally included in the subscription. For professionals, the amortized subscription price is probably the same as the flat one-time free plus the upgrades, if not cheaper. Some of the really expensive software I paid for in 90s and early 00s still has a flat one-time fee, such as Visual Studio or Final Cut Pro. Adobe and Autodesk have moved to subscriptions, but if anything that has made them more accessible to hobbyists. They were both charging ludicrous sums back then so the normies resorted to warez downloads.
- xboxnolifes 4y agoYes, that's the old pricing model. I'd bet that there are more subscribers on the new subscription model than the old flat-fee model.