I think a common factor on why torrents are having a resurgence and illegal streaming services are getting more traction, is subscription fatigue. Subscription fatigue doesn’t only contain itself to streaming services, movies or music, nowadays you’re also expected to subscribe to every app you download. Whether it’s a meditation app, a budgeting app (looking at YNAB that went from a one-time purchase to a really expensive subscription model), the Adobe suite, the MS Office suite, your Peloton bike that you’ve already paid hundreds of dollars for (referencing the earlier article on them establishing a startup fee for buying used bikes), or a podcast app where the money doesn’t even go to the podcasters themselves.
Is there a peak for this? I feel like subscriptions are becoming more of a rule than an exception. Having the ability to directly purchase digital goods seems more like a thing of the past. It’s just so stupid. But apparently people don’t care? They just keep paying for this? Apparently it’s still worth it for companies to establish a subscription model, even if there are no benefits for the customer, just the company. What are your thoughts? What can we do to stop it?
I know I’m in the minority but I am also a software developer, and I think subscriptions are a much healthier payment model for everyone. The issue IMO is not recurring payments but the total cost of ownership.
“Digitial goods” is very rarely just a thing that you produce once and then it’s done. The OS is regularly updated which causes incompatibilities, app stores introduce new demands, and there’s a constant stream of security vulnerabilities in your dependencies that need to be patched. Failing to adress any of these things breaks the social contract and causes rage among your users (“I PAID FOR THIS, WHY ISN’T IT WORKING/WHY AREN’T YOU FIXING BUGS/etc”). Even movies and music need to be maintained because new media formats are introduced, streaming services have to be kept responsive and up to date etc.
A subscription models the cost distribution over time much better, and it does benefit the users because it means the company can keep updating their shit even if new sales drop, instead of going bankrupt.
I don’t think this stops with just digital goods. Manufactured products (and the environment) would also benefit from a subscription model because it means there’s no incentive for planned obsolescence. It’s an incentive for keeping the stuff we already built working for a long time, instead of constantly producing new crap and throwing the old in a landfill.
But, the caveat is that this shift must not result in higher total cost of ownership for the end users over time. In fact, it should reduce the cost because repairing and updating is cheaper than building new stuff. The way many companies are pricing subscriptions today, they are being too greedy.
I completely agree with you in principle for people who want their software updated, but there is some software that is standalone and doesn’t depend upon changing codecs/APIs etc. Something like myfitnesspal or a thermomix shouldn’t be a subscription, there is no major updates to how someone tracks their exercise uses a hot blender that justifies it beyond users being locked in.
In the example of thermomix, you’ve already paid top dollar for the hardware, getting locked out of functionality you’ve paid for stings.
In the olden days software used to be sold by individual major versions. You paid for version 9, you paid for version 10. Or you skipped versions you didn’t need. You could use versions side by side. The newest installed would import its data from the older ones. etc.
App stores have made this very awkward or almost impossible. There’s no concept of separating major versions. You’d have to buy and install completely different apps to be able to pay for them separately and to use them side by side, but if they’re separate apps they can’t import your data from each other. Not to mention that people seem to hate having “too many apps” for some reason.
Software subscriptions switch the “support per major version” to “support per time of use”. It’s obviously shittier but it’s more realistic than a one-time price and expecting to use the app in all future versions in perpetuity. The one time price would have to be very large to be realistic.
This is an interesting point as well. Before, if you weren’t happy with an update or whatnot, you could just keep running the older version. But nowadays that’s impossible in many cases.
TBF in most cases forced app obsolescence is on the developers. Some of them are super aggressive and will force you to update without really needing it. Like, come on, package tracking app, I really don’t believe you’re unable to show me the package pick-up barcode without updating. 🙄
But yeah, on iOS it’s completely impossible to get older versions, once you’ve updated something that’s it. And even on Android I’ve noticed that it’s become impossible to downgrade some apps even if I have the old apk, the Google installer simply fails to install it if I’ve ever had a newer version installed.
I won’t dispute that both of these likely abuse the subscription model for their benefit. But they definitely have a social responsibility (and in many cases a legal responsibility) to keep updating the software in these products and the network infrastructure that go with them. The internet of things is one of the most vulnerable attack vectors we have. It has been exploited many times not just to attack individuals, but to create massive bot nets that can target corporations or even countries. The onus is on the manufacturer to continuously keep that at bay. You know what they say - the “S” in “IOT” stands for security.
I agree that IOT things need to be secure. Is it really too much to ask that apps/devices are made secure from the ground up?
To stay on the thermomix, all the subcription is is a connection to their servers to give access to their live step by step recipes. Surely that’s just a secure end-to-end encrypted connection? I’m not a developer but it doesn’t sound like buyers should be expected to pay the manufacturer to maintain beyond buying a thermomix/upgrading to new versions of the hardware when they want to access any new features.
In a way, yes. They can and should definitely be made with security in mind from the ground up. But they will never be totally secure, and a necessary part of what constitutes a “secure product” is to continuously and quickly patch security issues as they become known.
I would bet it’s still a bit more than that. But even if it’s just a secure end-to-end encrypted connection, here is the list of vulnerabilities fixed in OpenSSL (which is probably what they use for secure encrypted connections). It’s five so far in 2024. Then there’s some OS kernel below that which can have security issues as well. The Thermomix probably also has user authorization components and payment methods, plus various personal information that has to be protected under GDPR.
Hmmm… okay it sounds like the subscription model does actually make some sense for devices that need to maintain an internet connection/IoT applications. Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.
I mean, it would be zero cost if it was a fucking normal device. Someone had the idea that a juice squeezer or a toaster should be online… for… what, exactly? Remove the online (or even better, remove the software), you completely remove the cost that you want impugn on the user with “subscriptions”.
No argument there. But apparently there’s a market for it.
I see your point. But as someone else mentioned, there are many programs, apps and what not that shouldn’t require a subscription just by looking at how the software or hardware is set up.
What are your thoughts on ownership?
I feel a subscription model takes power away from me. Just like UBI would.
It just seems like a bad idea long term.
Would Universal Basic Income take power away from you?
Like you personally?
Or is UBI meaning something else too?
I think it was a “UBIsoft” , a game publishing company.
OMG I’m an idiot. Thank you!
Yeah because it takes away leverage from unions.
It’s better to have national shares, so everyone owns the production, and that provides your income. But ya now I am probably a commie?
How does it take leverage from unions?
It would effectively be a permanent strike fund.
Wouldn’t that help unions?
It’s also not so much “taking” power, as it’s not giving power you feel is your right.
Which, is the same kind of thinking that let’s copyright holders claim every count of piracy is theft of money they never actually had.
I didn’t understand the second part, could you elaborate on that?
How do you imagine unions to function at all without workers? The work is what provides unions with leverage, which is why we see strikes even in countries that have really good laws.
If you receive UBI, what can you do that genuinely creates leverage? Maybe make blockades like XR does? I don’t think that’s as powerful.
If there aren’t workers, there is no need for unions.
But that doesn’t happen anyway.
UBI doesn’t replace work. People still work. Pilot programs and tests show, people might work less overtime, or call out when sick more, so they can go to a doctor, spend more time home with a new baby, and stay in school longer gaining higher degrees. But they don’t quit their jobs. So there will still be plenty of workers to join unions.
Ya that makes sense. I guess it was kinda black and white to me and I was thinking of what’s called Basic in The Expanse.
Depends what kind of ownership you’re thinking about. When it comes to electronics, “ownership” is just subscription with a longer period between payments. Your existing phone, tablet, TV, dishwasher or what have you will last a finite time and then you have to buy a new one.
If there’s something that will last a lifetime, that’s a different discussion. But those are rare. Almost every purchase you make is a commitment to a recurring cost.
That’s an interesting perspective, and it makes sense for certain objects.
I also disagree with something you’re implying. If you build a proper headphones it will last forever. It’s a symptom of a broken system to create headphones that break every 3 years. That applies to many objects that I can think of right now.
I agree that the current system is broken. So let’s say that instead of paying $300 for a pair of headphones that last three years, you pay $8.33 / month for renting the headphones. Now, if the headphones break after three years the manufacturer has to produce new ones for you. That’s an undesirable cost for them.
It is now in their best interest to make headphones that will last a long time and that they can repair if something breaks. But also, since you can easily cancel the subscription at any time, it is in their interest to offer you something that is competitive. They might even upgrade to better technology over time or add new features to the bundled app to keep you as a customer. Or alternatively, lower the subscription cost over time to reflect the relative value of the headphones.
For you, there’s also the benefit that there’s no high upfront cost that you can’t reverse. You’re paying for what you can afford in your current situation. If you lose your job you can stop paying for the headphones at a moment’s notice. I imagine that this would leave fewer people in credit card debt.
Or we could fix the system and I have the right information as customer to be able to purchase a headphones that lasts long and can be repaired.
I’d argue we need a market that provides more useful information to the customer.
For example I’d like to know what environmental impact my products have. How long I’ll be able to get replacement parts. Longer guarantees perhaps. The ability to upgrade. I’m not an expert on the details.
At the moment I’d prefer to own rather than to rent. Quite frankly what you’re imagining sounds dystopian to me because you lose power.