75
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] zeppo@lemmy.world 53 points 5 months ago

Because companies make their best and most reliable income from subscriptions.

[-] Willem@kutsuya.dev 34 points 5 months ago

Also the reliable income makes them more credit worthy, allowing greater loans from banks and making it possible to grow more.

Tbh it only sucks for the customers

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago

Tbh it only sucks for the customers

capitalist tradition

[-] FelipeFelop@discuss.online 3 points 5 months ago

I’d say companies THINK they will make more money. That might be true with big, complex software that can be sold as a service that people will use (Photoshop, Windows, Office etc) or services that offer a lot (like the original version of Netflix or Amazon Prime)

But it’s not true for things you can take or leave. (Such as most mobile apps which now have to really on sales to boost conversion rates from Free tier to subscription).

Then you also have the issue of a fragmented market so even previously successful services like Prime are looking to get more money by adding extra costs (eg Prime Video will have adverts from the summer unless you pay $40 extra per year as a new top up subscription)

So it’s more of a theoretical reliable income.

[-] zeppo@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

It works great when people have it on autopay and are paying without consuming any services, or they make it a giant pain in the ass to unsubscribe and people put it off.

[-] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

or they make it a giant pain in the ass to unsubscribe

Which is why I'll never subscribe to SiriusXM again. I won't even take it for free. You can sign up for whatever plan you want online, but to cancel you have to call (and it's not 24/7) and listen to ten minutes of "but what if I offered you X service for $ per month? and gave you a month free? Don't you enjoy the service we provide? Let me put my supervisor on the phone so he can try to convince you not to quit us."

I think in California there's a law that if you can sign up online you must be able to cancel online, which pisses me off even more because Sirius could do this for the whole country but they'd rather drag and guilt people to get them to stay.

[-] rdyoung@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I often wonder how many people are still paying for AOL. I know people that were still paying for it when dsl or cable internet became the better option. I'll bet people are still paying for it decades later.

[-] honeyontoast@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago

Because they seemed like a good deal when they first came around, and they were, so they boomed in popularity. Then everyone started offering them, the prices got jacked up and now you'll struggle to find an alternative.

Also, the very very short answer: More money

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 21 points 5 months ago

It's a lot easier and much much cheaper to run a subscription payment model today than it was 10-20 years ago.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

'recurring revenue streams'. businesses can make more money selling products as services than actual things, and more reliably.

take adobe licensing as a perfect example of this enshitification.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Part of the problem is that the technology needed to turn increasingly mundane things into subscription services has gotten much cheaper.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 17 points 5 months ago

Adobe opened the floodgates and it's been downhill since

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 2 points 5 months ago

Adobe did it because everybody and their grandmother just pirated Photoshop instead of paying that huge one time fee (licenses costed around $900 not counting inflation). It wasn’t until they went with the subscription model when people actually started to pay for Photoshop.

[-] ThunderingJerboa@kbin.social 6 points 5 months ago

No personal person (except maybe freelancers) were ever going to buy Adobe for its list price, it was always about getting businesses to buy it, its the exact same scheme that there is for Winzip. Also you are acting like it was some act of kindness when really if it was that case, they would have kept perpetual licenses around with their subscription plan but they did away with it since they knew they can rake in way more money with the scheme. The plan for Photoshop was around $600, their subscription plan is $22 per month. in 2.2 years, you have paid basically the same amount but one you actually keep the product in the other you have to continue to rent it. Apparently the " Creative Suite Master Version" was $3000, today creative suite runs for $60 per month, so that would be around 4.2 years to pay it off. I doubt most people are using every single new feature they add. Hell some companies avoid updating to make sure everything is compatible with their current workload. So having perceptual licenses just make sense in these kind of cases.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 5 points 5 months ago

Piracy is a service problem. In this case, Photoshop has never been worth $900.

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 3 points 5 months ago

Apparently it’s worth $20/month.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 4 points 5 months ago
[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 1 points 5 months ago

No one uses Gimp for professional use. Gimp is not a full replacement of what Photoshop does.

[-] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

the problem is they don't offer the possibility of a "permanent" license anymore AFAIK.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 2 points 5 months ago

They priced it for businesses/students that would be using it constantly in a professional setting and did not have a reasonable personal use price for the general public who pirated it.

[-] kratoz29@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

I am not an adobe user, but isn't it possible to pirate its stuff? I'd do it only because I hate subscription models, and if they were the "pioneers" in this aspect I wouldn't want to give them a dime.

[-] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 5 months ago

C A P I T A L I S M

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

Once they proved that people would be willing to pay repeatedly, everyone wanted a slice of that delicious guaranteed revenue.

[-] solitaire@infosec.pub 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Online subscriptions have actually been a thing for a long time. In some ways it's even fallen out of favor, especially with the rise of the "freemium" model. MMOs are a great example of this as subscriptions used to be the price of entry with no other monetization, where as these days if an MMO uses subscriptions it's a secondary "convenience" fee after entry that is almost always combined with MTX bullshit.

If you're talking specifically about SaaS bullshit, it's because it required a certain level of infrastructure before it became practical. We had to move away from cash and needed reliable internet connections first, amongst a host of other developments. Anything that couldn't be a cash purchase in a physical store was losing significant market share. This didn't stop time restricted licenses on software still being a thing, but it was generally pretty niche software.

[-] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 9 points 5 months ago

imo, the subscription style is the evolution of "planned obsolescence".

people are willing to give money if the goods have an expiration. so instead of the goods expiring, the concept of validity of the goods now expire. same money, but saves on making different goods altogether.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society. They result in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality, risk of growing political bribery, and potential national decline.

[-] JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 months ago

Less people were tech literate back then, and the ones who were would likely pirate things like music, than consider buying things out of convenience.

When everyone and their grandmas got online, convenience was something more people were willing to pay for.

That's just my theory though.

[-] jvrava9@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 months ago
[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

"I swear to god" maybe.

ongod, must be an old person, no cap. /s

[-] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

I was wondering the same thing, like 6 new posts in the same sub within an hour is rather suspicious, but its not completely unheard of.

[-] kratoz29@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

What is its purpose here?

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 6 points 5 months ago

It's a similar reason retail stores try and push their loyalty programs, it's a more guaranteed source of income than a one time payment.

[-] PopMyCop@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 5 months ago

As my boss said in one of those stupid floor meetings we always had to have, "if they have [the competitor's] card in their wallet, and not ours, who do you think they're going to?" God, I got sick of asking folks to sign up.

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Because now is the age of techno-feudalism.

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 4 points 5 months ago

Bc people get stupider over time, it seems. :-(

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago

If you had to pick, would you rather get a large ammount of money semi regularly, or a smaller ammount of money on a consistant schedule, oh and there is no alternative for your customer than to keep paying for as long as they use your product.

this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
75 points (87.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

34310 readers
1686 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS