7 ms·

It's technically easy to not charge/cancel the user if they haven't used the services. But it's impossible to convince the product and business leads this is th

It's technically easy to not charge/cancel the user if they haven't used the services. But it's impossible to convince the product and business leads this is the correct thing to do. You will quickly get the "industry standard" response. It's demoralizing working on the subscription feature since it's filled with dark patterns.

bombela 3y ago
Pay per use with a rate lowering proportional to the increase in usage would feel quite fair. But it seems that a bit of ethic would kill the greedy.
- hn_version_0023 3y ago
  We’d be better off without the greedy, and this method seems a lot more humane than a literal purge.
atticora 3y ago
> It's demoralizing working on the subscription feature. Agree. I loathe subscriptions and avoid them like Covid. But the code I write for the publishing industry is out there day and night, across continents, pitching subscriptions to readers thousands of times per minute. Begging them to renew for this limited time offer, prodding them through the checkout process. It's not like a pacifist writing missile guidance software, but it's sad that this is where the money is.
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  You could always work in advertising instead
  - yetanother12345 3y ago
    I'd suggest the GP is indeed working in advertising pitching subscriptions to readers thousands of times per minute. Begging them to renew for this limited time offer, prodding them through the checkout process. (but shh... please don't tell)
    - IggleSniggle 3y ago
      This made me literally lol. Still. At the end of the day, if you've tried to get paid for a service or product you provide, to some degree you work in advertising.
jrmg 3y ago
That’s an interesting idea. I wonder if, for some services, the outcome for the supplier would be better. I think I’d be likely to subscribe to more TV services if they only charged me on months I used them. I’d feel I could just let them sit dormant in months they had no shows I wanted to watch, but I think I’d use them without much hesitation when some new show I was interested in became available.
- jader201 3y ago
  From a consumer standpoint, 100% agree with you. From a provider standpoint, I’m guessing they would lose more revenue from existing subscribers not using it vs. what they’d gain from new (often dormant) subscribers.
  - IggleSniggle 3y ago
    It's a great model for any younger, relatively unknown provider for this reason. Although, the $9/mo Netflix subscription (I can't remember the actual price point, but it worked out if you watched more than 2 movies in a month) totally beat the pants off the Blockerbuster late fees / missing title fees on a $1/film/day pay-as-you-go model, from a consumer standpoint.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    I wonder how many dormant subscribers those services have. I find it hard to believe that they'll have many. They are not like a gym where it's work to use. Instead, they are exactly the opposite.
jonhohle 3y ago
There’s a sneaky reason to suspend their service if they’re not using it: to capture some revenue by avoiding chargebacks or refunds for the entire idle period. If they fees stop getting charged, past periods are likely not going to be audited and are at less risk of claw back. Obviously, this itself is a dark pattern masquerading as beneficial to customers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jacobkg 3y ago
The one service I have that works this way is AT&T mobile International Calling and Data. I pay $10 USD for any day that I use the service outside the US and Canada. It is always “on” so I don’t have to worry about enabling it before trips or canceling it when trips end. I agree it would be great if more services were like this.
- devilbunny 3y ago
  This is a tangent, but I would bet that your AT&T service also covers Mexico without the $10/day fee. My wife's does, as does my Verizon. Note: AT&T didn't have a partner in Morocco on the $10/day plan when I was there in 2019, but VZW did. Do check which countries are covered.
  - jacobkg 3y ago
    Ah yes it does. Which I guess is another benefit of this setup. I don’t need to know which countries are included with the base plan as they only charge extra for the countries that aren’t
makeitdouble 3y ago
This is an interesting idea but would need deeper adjustements on what the user is paying for. For instance Netflix charges you for the next month you'll be using it. So at the time of charge, it has no idea if you'll use the service within the month or not, thus only the "cancel" part could happen. Moving to a post-usage payment can be done, but it becomes weird when the payment doesn't go through and quickly transforms into an open door for fraudulent activity. Auto-canceling could be the best option, yet it would be an issue if the user actually expected to use the service the next month. They can still resubscribe again before using it again, but that's an extra step and also means the billing date gets reset, which might not desired by the user depending on how they manage their budget. Basically, it's looks like a simple enough idea but the devil's in the details and it requires a decent amount of work to come out with something both the service and the user can easily understand and manage efficiently.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  I mean we could give them a "free" month as on off ramp, pay exactly the same as we do today but if you don't use it for a full month it gets paused, and that would still be dramatically better for consumers than the status quo.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    You seem to be describing something like a credit system ? It would be weird to get billed for December on a service because you used it a few times in November; that can be explained, but with enough time between the use and the billing it would easily look like a fraudulent charge to the user, and if they decide to cancel it at that time, they'll still be stuck for a full month. That could make more sense if you're burning through "coins" and need to purchase new ones once you don't have any. Come to think of it, mobile data billing system would also be close to that, except mobile ISPs can afford to require KYC documents up to a legal ID which drastically reduces the potential for fraud.
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
jonathankoren 3y ago
That’s because subscriptions aren’t about providing a product, it’s about creating stable cash flow. Literally every subscription product could be charged on a per item basis, but they don’t because they want to create stable cash flow. Subscriptions are just the gym membership model, where they hope people forget about it. Or when it comes to SaaS, the ransomware model. (“Those are some fine files you got there. It would be a shame if anything happened to them.”)
paxys 3y ago
Slack does exactly this, but then it makes business sense for both parties because they can tell a company "buy licenses for all your employees, but don't worry we won't charge you if they send less than N messages a month". When dealing with individual consumers the service doesn't really have any incentive not to charge you.

bombela 3y ago

Pay per use with a rate lowering proportional to the increase in usage would feel quite fair. But it seems that a bit of ethic would kill the greedy.

hn_version_0023 3y ago
We’d be better off without the greedy, and this method seems a lot more humane than a literal purge.

atticora 3y ago

> It's demoralizing working on the subscription feature. Agree. I loathe subscriptions and avoid them like Covid. But the code I write for the publishing industry is out there day and night, across continents, pitching subscriptions to readers thousands of times per minute. Begging them to renew for this limited time offer, prodding them through the checkout process. It's not like a pacifist writing missile guidance software, but it's sad that this is where the money is.

IggleSniggle 3y ago
You could always work in advertising instead
- yetanother12345 3y ago
  I'd suggest the GP is indeed working in advertising pitching subscriptions to readers thousands of times per minute. Begging them to renew for this limited time offer, prodding them through the checkout process. (but shh... please don't tell)
  - IggleSniggle 3y ago
    This made me literally lol. Still. At the end of the day, if you've tried to get paid for a service or product you provide, to some degree you work in advertising.

jrmg 3y ago

That’s an interesting idea. I wonder if, for some services, the outcome for the supplier would be better. I think I’d be likely to subscribe to more TV services if they only charged me on months I used them. I’d feel I could just let them sit dormant in months they had no shows I wanted to watch, but I think I’d use them without much hesitation when some new show I was interested in became available.

jader201 3y ago
From a consumer standpoint, 100% agree with you. From a provider standpoint, I’m guessing they would lose more revenue from existing subscribers not using it vs. what they’d gain from new (often dormant) subscribers.
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  It's a great model for any younger, relatively unknown provider for this reason. Although, the $9/mo Netflix subscription (I can't remember the actual price point, but it worked out if you watched more than 2 movies in a month) totally beat the pants off the Blockerbuster late fees / missing title fees on a $1/film/day pay-as-you-go model, from a consumer standpoint.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  I wonder how many dormant subscribers those services have. I find it hard to believe that they'll have many. They are not like a gym where it's work to use. Instead, they are exactly the opposite.

jonhohle 3y ago

There’s a sneaky reason to suspend their service if they’re not using it: to capture some revenue by avoiding chargebacks or refunds for the entire idle period. If they fees stop getting charged, past periods are likely not going to be audited and are at less risk of claw back. Obviously, this itself is a dark pattern masquerading as beneficial to customers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jacobkg 3y ago

The one service I have that works this way is AT&T mobile International Calling and Data. I pay $10 USD for any day that I use the service outside the US and Canada. It is always “on” so I don’t have to worry about enabling it before trips or canceling it when trips end. I agree it would be great if more services were like this.

devilbunny 3y ago
This is a tangent, but I would bet that your AT&T service also covers Mexico without the $10/day fee. My wife's does, as does my Verizon. Note: AT&T didn't have a partner in Morocco on the $10/day plan when I was there in 2019, but VZW did. Do check which countries are covered.
- jacobkg 3y ago
  Ah yes it does. Which I guess is another benefit of this setup. I don’t need to know which countries are included with the base plan as they only charge extra for the countries that aren’t

makeitdouble 3y ago

This is an interesting idea but would need deeper adjustements on what the user is paying for. For instance Netflix charges you for the next month you'll be using it. So at the time of charge, it has no idea if you'll use the service within the month or not, thus only the "cancel" part could happen. Moving to a post-usage payment can be done, but it becomes weird when the payment doesn't go through and quickly transforms into an open door for fraudulent activity. Auto-canceling could be the best option, yet it would be an issue if the user actually expected to use the service the next month. They can still resubscribe again before using it again, but that's an extra step and also means the billing date gets reset, which might not desired by the user depending on how they manage their budget. Basically, it's looks like a simple enough idea but the devil's in the details and it requires a decent amount of work to come out with something both the service and the user can easily understand and manage efficiently.

BobaFloutist 3y ago
I mean we could give them a "free" month as on off ramp, pay exactly the same as we do today but if you don't use it for a full month it gets paused, and that would still be dramatically better for consumers than the status quo.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  You seem to be describing something like a credit system ? It would be weird to get billed for December on a service because you used it a few times in November; that can be explained, but with enough time between the use and the billing it would easily look like a fraudulent charge to the user, and if they decide to cancel it at that time, they'll still be stuck for a full month. That could make more sense if you're burning through "coins" and need to purchase new ones once you don't have any. Come to think of it, mobile data billing system would also be close to that, except mobile ISPs can afford to require KYC documents up to a legal ID which drastically reduces the potential for fraud.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago

jonathankoren 3y ago

That’s because subscriptions aren’t about providing a product, it’s about creating stable cash flow. Literally every subscription product could be charged on a per item basis, but they don’t because they want to create stable cash flow. Subscriptions are just the gym membership model, where they hope people forget about it. Or when it comes to SaaS, the ransomware model. (“Those are some fine files you got there. It would be a shame if anything happened to them.”)

paxys 3y ago

Slack does exactly this, but then it makes business sense for both parties because they can tell a company "buy licenses for all your employees, but don't worry we won't charge you if they send less than N messages a month". When dealing with individual consumers the service doesn't really have any incentive not to charge you.