5 ms·

By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away f

by paxys 1y ago

By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it? Especially since personal computers and mobile devices get more and more powerful and capable with every passing year. Yet subscriptions also get more prevalent every year. If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it? Non sequitur. If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset. Vice versa: if the asset sellers are ripping off the market, there is opportunity to turn it into a subscription. Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons. Nothing there suggets one mode is infinitely yielding. > If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else? If they can, someone else can, too. They can make plenty of money selling it straight.
- Draiken 1y ago
  > If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset. Only in theory. Nothing beats getting paid forever. > Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons They do? AFAICT everything devolves into subscriptions/rent since it maximizes profit. It's the only logical outcome. > If they can, someone else can, too. And that's why companies love those monopolies. So, no... other's can't straight up compete against a monopoly.
phinnaeus 1y ago
What on-device app does Apple charge a subscription for?
cloverich 1y ago
Because they need to displace open AI users, or open AI will steer their trajectory towards Apple at some point.

by paxys 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> By that logic none of us should be paying monthly subscriptions for anything because obviously someone would disrupt that pricing model and take business away from all the tech companies who are charging it? Non sequitur. If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset. Vice versa: if the asset sellers are ripping off the market, there is opportunity to turn it into a subscription. Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons. Nothing there suggets one mode is infinitely yielding. > If Apple does finally come up with a fully on-device AI model that is actually useful, what makes you think they won't gate it behind a $20/mo subscription like they do for everything else? If they can, someone else can, too. They can make plenty of money selling it straight.

Draiken 1y ago
> If a market is being ripped off by subscription, there is opportunity in selling the asset. Only in theory. Nothing beats getting paid forever. > Business models tend to oscillate between these two for a variety of reasons They do? AFAICT everything devolves into subscriptions/rent since it maximizes profit. It's the only logical outcome. > If they can, someone else can, too. And that's why companies love those monopolies. So, no... other's can't straight up compete against a monopoly.

phinnaeus 1y ago

What on-device app does Apple charge a subscription for?

cloverich 1y ago

Because they need to displace open AI users, or open AI will steer their trajectory towards Apple at some point.