Comment by nighthawk454 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nighthawk454 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's... not the user's problem. This is a fine and cool project don't get me wrong. But the overall 'subscription everything' model is not really justified by costs. The subscriptions are usually orders of magnitude more than the true operating cost.

It's not the customer's job to pay you forever bc Apple wants a developer license. It's the business's job to make sure it's sustainable with the costs that it has / has chosen to bear.

That's the backpressure on business models - they're not all viable. Just because you _could_ add in a bunch of servers and cloud costs and whatever, doesn't mean it's inherently justified.

The problem is more that it's gotten _so_ cheap to run, that charging each user a seemingly-nominal 5c/day fee doesn't feel bad to an average person for a chance at value. And at scale you get enough people who figure "ah it's not that much", and end up with massive profit margins. Profiting off the disparity between the individual choice and the aggregate.

There doesn't need to be any justification. If that's what OP wants to charge then that's reason enough.

That being said, OP should probably realize a lot of people don't pay for software--even in HN.

That's why OP needs to make sure the users are the product and find some way to sell the user data to advertisers.

OP should contact restaurants and allow them to place ads in the recommendations. He should also sell access to user data and allow restaurants and advertisers to target free users.

He can have a subscription tier that gives you privacy.

Your comment was quite the ride.

> There doesn't need to be any justification. If that's what OP wants to charge then that's reason enough.

Yep, makes sense.

> That being said, OP should probably realize a lot of people don't pay for software--even in HN.

Indeed. Maybe people pay even less on HN, seeing as many of us can hack together something for personal use.

> That's why OP needs to make sure the users are the product and find some way to sell the user data to advertisers.

Er…

> OP should contact restaurants and allow them to place ads in the recommendations. He should also sell access to user data and allow restaurants and advertisers to target free users.

Wait, what? This is app for eating at home, restaurants have nothing to do with it.

> He can have a subscription tier that gives you privacy.

Full-on dystopia.

if and when someone invents microtransactions for real ... i still think being able to pay a penny or a nickel for a resource, instead of a subscription, would be an interesting experiment.

probably everyone would end up going broke but i would love to see a simulation of it, if not a real experiment.

i know nickel transactions costs a dime to process, but if it was cheap we could have new ways of having new things.

As soon as we get microtransactions, we will also see the implementation of micro-fines.

That would be kind of neat. Bc realistically the marginal costs on most digital things is negligible. But if it were practical to charge people the 1e-11 dollars per page view or whatever maybe could do some interesting things

> But the overall 'subscription everything' model is not really justified by costs

Probably shouldn't subscribe then ...

I think the argument is that you shouldn't choose to price a product as a subscription simply because you have recurring costs.

If I subscribe to a magazine or a streaming service, I continually get new content. Apps that aren't doing that are basically price gouging customers.

It’s nice of you to consider the wellbeing of other users, but I think every adult has the right to make their own decisions about how to spend their money.

If it’s not a price you’re willing to pay, that’s fine. But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator.

> But if someone else gets value out of it and thinks it’s a fair trade, that’s between them and the app creator.

Since we're apparently now doing Freshman Civics:

There are many sorts of transactions that someone would get value from and think are a fair trade, but are prohibited for one reason or another.

Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social.

> Even for those somewhat-antisocial transactions that aren't prohibited, there's no rule that says that you can't complain about how those transactions could be more pro-social.

Yeah, and there's also no rule that says that other people can't tell you to shut up.

Why do you feel the need to tell them to shut up?

How about the argument that having recurring income incentivizes further development, whereas single-pay fees incentivize customer acquisition?

That's called gambling. Pay me now and maybe you'll like what comes next!

And the customers don't like it, they can stop paying.

Seems like a risk to the author. Keeping existing customers is typically easier than getting new ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com