3 ms·

I disagree with this - subscriptions align the price to users services with the cost to create them. Better than pricing Windows XP at $300 or something like th

I disagree with this - subscriptions align the price to users services with the cost to create them. Better than pricing Windows XP at $300 or something like they used to, then using that one-off cost to pay for ongoing support, security fixes, driver work etc.

xdennis 4y ago
Before you buy it you're told how long it's going to be supported. It's not like you pay 300 for the product and the company gives you support from the kindness of their hearts. If what you say is true, then subscriptions would get cheaper as more people subscribe, but that's not the case. They just pocket the profit. Subscriptions allow companies to extract more money from their clients, which is , of course, what companies are meant to do. But don't give me that nonsense about making it a more fair alignment between cost and price.
- spacebanana7 4y ago
  > If what you say is true, then subscriptions would get cheaper as more people subscribe, but that's not the case. They just pocket the profit. The OP’s point could have been better phrased by stating that subscriptions provide an ongoing incentive for companies to support products to minimise churn. Yes they’ll extract almost 100% margin on recurring customers but it’s better than the alternative of one off payment structures where the company is incentived to minimise ongoing costs to the extent they can avoid legal troubles. If you made a one off payment to a newspaper they’d be incentivised to write low cost articles forevermore because they’ll never get any more money out if you. If you make a one off payment for an OS there’s little incentive to bother with security fixes short of again litigation.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    In the other model terms are described up front and you are given terms for support which the company factors into the price. In both models minimizing cost is the goal. In your model the customer loses ownership which means after the break even period the company keeps getting paid vs the loyal user can keep getting usage for free. The customer loses control over the tool. The subscription model is designed against loyalty and needs to cast a wider net they do this by offering free tiers and free periods where the hope is to hook the user. This gets them many low value users who are looking to extract as much value without paying and they will wait for black friday sales, subscribe for brief periods, share services or abuse free tiers. Better for users to have a version that always works on certain operating systems than ongoing payments and out of your control system changes

xdennis 4y ago

Before you buy it you're told how long it's going to be supported. It's not like you pay 300 for the product and the company gives you support from the kindness of their hearts. If what you say is true, then subscriptions would get cheaper as more people subscribe, but that's not the case. They just pocket the profit. Subscriptions allow companies to extract more money from their clients, which is , of course, what companies are meant to do. But don't give me that nonsense about making it a more fair alignment between cost and price.

spacebanana7 4y ago
> If what you say is true, then subscriptions would get cheaper as more people subscribe, but that's not the case. They just pocket the profit. The OP’s point could have been better phrased by stating that subscriptions provide an ongoing incentive for companies to support products to minimise churn. Yes they’ll extract almost 100% margin on recurring customers but it’s better than the alternative of one off payment structures where the company is incentived to minimise ongoing costs to the extent they can avoid legal troubles. If you made a one off payment to a newspaper they’d be incentivised to write low cost articles forevermore because they’ll never get any more money out if you. If you make a one off payment for an OS there’s little incentive to bother with security fixes short of again litigation.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  In the other model terms are described up front and you are given terms for support which the company factors into the price. In both models minimizing cost is the goal. In your model the customer loses ownership which means after the break even period the company keeps getting paid vs the loyal user can keep getting usage for free. The customer loses control over the tool. The subscription model is designed against loyalty and needs to cast a wider net they do this by offering free tiers and free periods where the hope is to hook the user. This gets them many low value users who are looking to extract as much value without paying and they will wait for black friday sales, subscribe for brief periods, share services or abuse free tiers. Better for users to have a version that always works on certain operating systems than ongoing payments and out of your control system changes