4 ms·
I've been poor before and $200 one-time is WAY less expensive than $5/mo recurring. If I can't afford to save $200 I sure can't afford to pay $5 recurring. Re
by faeriechangling 3y ago
I've been poor before and $200 one-time is WAY less expensive than $5/mo recurring. If I can't afford to save $200 I sure can't afford to pay $5 recurring. Recurring subscriptions are for the wealthy, not the poor, the poor can do just fine with freeware or some 10 year old version of whatever.
Paying a recurring monthly subscription isn't the only way to get a trial.
- TheRealPomax 3y agoSounds like you're not a kid to me. I didn't have $200 to spend until I was halfway through college. But I sure as hell would have been able to afford $5 a month.
- faeriechangling 3y agoI participated in the long and storied tradition of child labour to buy things I wanted. If you didn't have any money to spend until halfway though college other than a surplus of $5/month, than by saving for $200 you likely would have doubled your disposable income and you would have left school with a Final Cut Pro license on top of that. I'm sure kids will buy it, and they're going to be worse for it than when they paid $200 for a license. In any case, I can't emphasise enough how much paying a monthly subscription over a one time fee does not help the poor in general, at best it allows for you to shift expenses a few years down the road with low interest if you're some sort of temporarily embarrassed millionaire, which isn't the same thing as helping poor kids other than maybe some small niche. Being poor doesn't mean you should do more $5/month subscriptions, it means you can't get away with them nearly as much without getting punished by economic reality.