Every single business in the world, is conspiring on ways to grab more money lol.
Why is everything turning into a subscription and when will it stop?
- Thread starter mrochester
- Start date
Every single business in the world, is conspiring on ways to grab more money lol.
You're going about this all wrong. It's on an individual level.
Person A ordering 100 packages a month. 100 packages for £7. Do they think the subscription is worth it? Answer almost definitely yes.
Person B. 20 packages a month for £7. Do they think it's worth it? Answer almost definitely yes.
Doesn't matter to A what's B is doing or vice versa.
I use Apple Music at weekends, and gatherings, parties. I feel it's worth the money I pay. Sure there are people out there that listen to Apple Music a lot more than me. Do I feel hard done by it? No.
Personal ideas of "doesn't matter" are irrelevant, If one person can remain blissfully ignorant of the facts then I'm sure they feel great.
However the facts remain, the person using the service LESS, is subsidising for the people using and abusing the services to the extreme.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
At the end of the day, their model is still cheaper than the alternative, which is paying for next day delivery for an individual item.
If it is not, then your poor financial choices are to blame, not some sinister group of office workers thinking of ways to mislead you. There is nothing misleading about the vast majority of subscriptions offered.
If you want to offer me a cheaper alternative to one of my subscriptions, then i am all ears but if you cant, then it seems you are as ignorant as the rest of us (just not as blissfully it seems).
If it is not, then your poor financial choices are to blame, not some sinister group of office workers thinking of ways to mislead you. There is nothing misleading about the vast majority of subscriptions offered.
If you want to offer me a cheaper alternative to one of my subscriptions, then i am all ears but if you cant, then it seems you are as ignorant as the rest of us (just not as blissfully it seems).
So don't subscribe then? Pay for delivery on 20 items a month outside of the subscription.
What would you rather?
Get 20 deliveries a month and 'subsidise those who abuse the system' for £7 a month...
Or pay for 20 lots of delivery a month costing a lot more than £7
How do you explain Microsoft switching to subscription after DECADES, and then suddenly their income goes through the roof too.
So in your understanding there was NO conspiring/discussion to switch to subscription models and there was no discussion as to the potential affects on their income? You're saying it just randomly happened by magic?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the person who uses the services less is subsidising it for the people who abuse the services to the extreme.
It's not about would you rather. That's just the low level psychology that makes it work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
You can still buy microsoft 2016 licenses you know...
You have different pricing models to choose from and no hidden costs or traps. So while there may have been chats to decide this behind closed doors, it seems that the end details are there for you to see just before the buy button.
No one is arguing that some users dont subsidies for others. The point made is that subscription models suit some people and business types more.
In every business some products make more money than others. You will find some shoppers at the supermarket will subsidies the shopping of other customers depending on their purchases. Nothing sinister going on there.
You have different pricing models to choose from and no hidden costs or traps. So while there may have been chats to decide this behind closed doors, it seems that the end details are there for you to see just before the buy button.
No one is arguing that some users dont subsidies for others. The point made is that subscription models suit some people and business types more.
In every business some products make more money than others. You will find some shoppers at the supermarket will subsidies the shopping of other customers depending on their purchases. Nothing sinister going on there.
But surely you should have some respect for these people. They're getting shafted so others can benefit.
If no one was getting shafted the business model would fail. The fact is many people are paying for subs and never getting their money's worth.
I think and care about everyone especially those who are disadvantaged in any way.
What are you arguing? You are moaning about subscription based services. We are using amazon as an example.
You're saying it's unfair that person A is being subsidised by person B because person B doesn't send as much... in a round about way you're right. (Although for £7 a month even person getting 20 packages is being subsidised from somewhere).
So what is the alternative? Don't subscribe if your person B because the system is unfair for you as you don't use it as much?
Why would you? Paying for 20 deliveries is a lot more expensive outside the subscription. So what if person A gets more deliveries? It's irrelevant.
In response to your 'someone has to be getting shafted' well why? If someone is paying the subscription they must deem it worth the money? Whether they order 1 thing or 1000. Watch The grand Tour or don't.
It's a personal preference. Just because you think person B who only gets 20 packages a month is getting shafted doesn't make it so.
I don't like subscription either. Because it's all or nothing. You can stop using Netflix. But if they keep incrementally increasing the price then you kind of go along.
I have very very few subscription based services.
Netflix, gym and vpn are only ones I can think of that aren't bills
I don't need amazon prime. I don't listen to enough music to justify Spotify, I don't watch sport so don't need sky.
I have very very few subscription based services.
Netflix, gym and vpn are only ones I can think of that aren't bills
I don't need amazon prime. I don't listen to enough music to justify Spotify, I don't watch sport so don't need sky.
Exactly. There's no argument, I'm just raising ethical points.
And even the person getting 20 packages a month is being subsidised by someone using less services, you are correct.
Not sure how people can think software subscriptions are better than buying a licence outright. If you stop paying the sub you can no longer use the software at all, doesn't matter if it's the latest and greatest up to date version or the current version - no can do - you're not allowed access!
Where as I can buy an Office key and still use it 10 years down the line. Obviously that's what they want to stop, they want your money and they want you to keep giving it to them.
Where as I can buy an Office key and still use it 10 years down the line. Obviously that's what they want to stop, they want your money and they want you to keep giving it to them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
You seem to think that the more people on the subscription, the more people getting shafted in proportion. It isnt the case if you compare pricing between number of users, if 100 subscribers allow for parcels to be delivered half as much as 10 subscribers due to volume contracts, then the cost of running is lower and they can price the subscription lower while still obtaining a margin. Amazon get silly low costs due to volume of shipping. These savings are passed onto subscribers, or it wouldn't be so cheap. This is done to in turn get customers to purchase from amazon over competitors. Savings can be made from the suppliers and shippers by using a subscription model, from that a cheaper model is viable. If amazon had a tiny fraction of its current subscribers, it would have to charge more.
These customers have chosen this service over an alternative that it is offered, they know the price and what exactly is offered. Why do i need to feel sorry for customers who buy something note economically advantageous to them when they bought it themselves out of choice?
Being able to subscribe and unsubscribe means consumers who do not use the products all the time can save money, as well as businesses who have much busier times of years than the others.
Some software such as online games charge for subscription due to cover ongoing costs of the business such as hosting, updates and new content.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,349
indeed, but if you do the maths its still more expensive. but then its a psychology thing, i remember a mate of mine getting a contract for an iphone 6s when i knew damn well he had the free capital to just buy it outright, his reasoning was "yeah but it didnt feel like spending a lot of money"
the issue is that its combined, the giffgaff way of doing things is much better- finance plan for the phone and an entirely seperate sim contract (that you can instantly cancel if thats what you need), but of course doing it that way exposes the customer to the fact that they're charging interest, which the bigger companies have no inclination to do.
Back when I started buying mobile phones the most expensive phones were around £300. Now they are £600-£1000 because they know no one is actually going to pay that upfront so they just make them more and more expensive as most folk just look at the monthly price touted by the networks.
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,834
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Buying a phone on contract is at times cheaper/better than sim only + unlocked.
Absolutely correct. Messed up thing is Virgin Mobile is doing THREE year contracts now
Back when I started buying mobile phones the maximum was 12 months, and the phone would last 5 years!
Now your contract will be 3 years, and the phone is useless after 2 years because battery is dead.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
But you're only getting shafted if the value you derive from the service is less than the cost of the service, and arguably less than the cost of a comparable service. So yeah if you only order 1 package from Amazon a year and don't need/want any of the other benefits of Prime membership then you're overpaying. Having said that I'd argue that you're not being shafted because you're not forced to adopt the model, Amazon still offer pay per delivery options.
The only people losing out are those who let the sub run without making use of it, and I'm not sure you can lay the blame for that at Amazon's feet.
Even if someone is getting more from the service than I am, if my use of the service has a value to me of greater than £79 p/a then I'm not being shafted.