by noemit on 9/20/24, 8:48 PM with 14 comments
I don't have a problem paying when the pricing model makes sense, ie, when I actively engage with your product, or you give me access to a content library that keeps improving, like netflix.
What I have fatigue with is SaaS products that could easily be microtransactions.
In fact I was using an AI product that was using a credit system and swtiched over to a subscription. Without getting into too much detail, if you didn't pay for the subscription, you lost your library of work. But I was only using the product 1-2 times a year - it felt crazy to pay even $10 for them to store data that probably cost pennies to store.
Maybe it's because I know how the sausage is made, but I don't like being screwed at this level. Pricing structure needs to more closely match value add, and I think a lot of software should be microtransaction based.
Curious if there are other business models that any of you have considered outside of software as a subscription.
by austin-cheney on 9/21/24, 11:39 AM
I do find that strange. All the younger people know is full service convenience or complete absence of experience with no in between. I, and many people I known my age, would gladly spend many hours carefully procuring media and carefully storing/organizing it at great cost and effort. If the internet goes down we old people still retain access to everything uninterrupted.
by bruce511 on 9/21/24, 4:12 AM
For example, your projects in that site. You describe it as "pennies to store". For how long should they store it for free? For a year? 5 years? a million years?
Let me put it this way - if your own library of work is not worth $10 to you, then perhaps it's worthless and can be discarded?
Subscriptions are not going away as a business model because where there are ongoing costs, there has to be ongoing revenue. Anything else is not sustainable.
If there are one-time costs then by all means charge one-time amounts. But hosting, storage, bandwidth cost money every month because the hardware and meatware costs of providing that service happen every month.
by tomcam on 9/22/24, 2:22 AM
Being charged $10 a year for storage doesn’t just represent the pennies it would cost you on AWS. You have to pay for people running the site, your support contract with Amazon, egress charges, etc. I am happy to pay $10 a year for someone to blame if I know it’s reliable service.
by vunderba on 9/23/24, 4:17 AM
On another note, never deal with a company that can effectively hold your data hostage. If they don't provide an easy way to exfiltrate your data, you send a strongly worded email and do your absolute best to not rely on them.
by artistaiden on 9/20/24, 9:21 PM
by brudgers on 9/21/24, 4:10 AM
If you are not getting $10 of value it is economically irrational to pay $10 to store data. If you are getting $10 of value or more it is economically rational.
That it costs only pennies to store the data incentivizes the company to stay in business. That’s probably in the interest of the people whose data is stored.
If it is a business decision, the cost of storing the data should be reflected in the prices its customers pay. Ideally the price is marked up so that profits increase in proportion to the expense. Personal use is another Ferraris-are-not-for-everyone matter. Good luck.
by akagusu on 9/20/24, 9:59 PM
In the future everything will be owned by the riches, we will just rent our lives from them.
by kentich on 9/21/24, 4:08 AM
by bwb on 9/21/24, 7:36 PM
by outlore on 9/21/24, 4:52 PM