4 ms·

I had to buy a printer recently, too. When I saw those subscriptions my first thought was there will come a day when everything we "own" is tied to a subscripti

by jarsin 3y ago

I had to buy a printer recently, too. When I saw those subscriptions my first thought was there will come a day when everything we "own" is tied to a subscription/account. The days of actually owning something that you can self service/repair are coming to an end.

api 3y ago
I learned the reason for this push as I learned about business accounting and particularly how businesses are valued. Recurring revenue is valued at higher multiples than non-recurring revenue, and the math for how to value it is much simpler. Higher valuation multiples mean more ability to raise money or access debt liquidity in the market at a lower cost in either equity or interest. This creates a powerful systematic incentive for companies to look for any and all opportunities to tack a subscription onto everything. It’s so powerful that it can make sense for a company to trade higher non-recurring revenues for lower recurring revenues. The only thing that will push back is if consumers revolt and stop buying things that require subscriptions, especially if the subscription doesn’t make any sense or as with this case has unacceptable terms. Bottom line is that you get what you incentivize. If you see a pathological trend, look for the incentives.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > The only thing that will push back is if consumers revolt and stop buying things that require subscriptions, especially if the subscription doesn’t make any sense or as with this case has unacceptable terms. As we should. I don't care how much sense it makes for the business. It doesn't make sense for me, and I'm the one making the purchasing decision. Those who play this kind of game to trade higher non-recurring revenue for lower recurring revenue won't have my revenue, whether recurring or non-recurring. The big problem is when it's hidden. If it's clearly spelled out that this is the way they're going to play, fine. But if you buy a printer and then later find out that they're doing this, that's basically a deceptive business practice, because the terms aren't what you were led to believe they are. That's something where consumer protection laws should apply.
hikingsimulator 3y ago
"You will own nothing, and be happy" [0] mentality has creeped its way in many industries. What was described as a dystopia in 2017 may now feel like an approaching wall. Happy Monday. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha...
- travisporter 3y ago
  I really hope you read this wiki article
  - hikingsimulator 3y ago
    You should be more explicit with your insinuation. That Auken created the term as a critique does not remove the fact that companies have ended up looking at it as a MO. If you're looking at it from the conspiracy side of things, that's your problem. I'm personally annoyed I increasingly can't fully own what I buy because of some "subscribification" of goods and services.
    - travisporter 3y ago
      I’m completely with you. Paywalled battery? Heated seats? Bananas. Just wanted to point out that it was meant as a critique. Or maybe to show off that I read your link :)

by jarsin 3y ago

api 3y ago

I learned the reason for this push as I learned about business accounting and particularly how businesses are valued. Recurring revenue is valued at higher multiples than non-recurring revenue, and the math for how to value it is much simpler. Higher valuation multiples mean more ability to raise money or access debt liquidity in the market at a lower cost in either equity or interest. This creates a powerful systematic incentive for companies to look for any and all opportunities to tack a subscription onto everything. It’s so powerful that it can make sense for a company to trade higher non-recurring revenues for lower recurring revenues. The only thing that will push back is if consumers revolt and stop buying things that require subscriptions, especially if the subscription doesn’t make any sense or as with this case has unacceptable terms. Bottom line is that you get what you incentivize. If you see a pathological trend, look for the incentives.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> The only thing that will push back is if consumers revolt and stop buying things that require subscriptions, especially if the subscription doesn’t make any sense or as with this case has unacceptable terms. As we should. I don't care how much sense it makes for the business. It doesn't make sense for me, and I'm the one making the purchasing decision. Those who play this kind of game to trade higher non-recurring revenue for lower recurring revenue won't have my revenue, whether recurring or non-recurring. The big problem is when it's hidden. If it's clearly spelled out that this is the way they're going to play, fine. But if you buy a printer and then later find out that they're doing this, that's basically a deceptive business practice, because the terms aren't what you were led to believe they are. That's something where consumer protection laws should apply.

hikingsimulator 3y ago

"You will own nothing, and be happy" [0] mentality has creeped its way in many industries. What was described as a dystopia in 2017 may now feel like an approaching wall. Happy Monday. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha...

travisporter 3y ago
I really hope you read this wiki article
- hikingsimulator 3y ago
  You should be more explicit with your insinuation. That Auken created the term as a critique does not remove the fact that companies have ended up looking at it as a MO. If you're looking at it from the conspiracy side of things, that's your problem. I'm personally annoyed I increasingly can't fully own what I buy because of some "subscribification" of goods and services.
  - travisporter 3y ago
    I’m completely with you. Paywalled battery? Heated seats? Bananas. Just wanted to point out that it was meant as a critique. Or maybe to show off that I read your link :)