The example apps that this person gives seem to prove subscription models being a good alternative more than anything
Guardian for 2.50 a month. How much did newspapers cost?
10 a month for VPN service. You have to rent a server right?
80 bucks for Dropbox a year. How much does that external terabyte hard drive cost, let alone the syncing feature.
Not to mention that a lot of stuff is in easily exportable formats....
There's always going to be one off apps, but most of this stuff is too nice to be supported by one off purchases (far before it's considered "done"). Paying 100 dollars a month for premium software when we spend all our time in our computer is ... Fine I think.
Though the counterargument is that I wouldn't spend 100 bucks a month on chairs.
Subscription services are blatant rent-seeking. Startups should be ashamed to have their hands out like common street hawkers. I don't care if there are recurring monthly expenses for your company to meet, you used to be able to buy software and now, increasingly, you can't.
We are very quickly heading down the path to a full-blown renteer class, who don't own anything and live at the mercy of their myriad service providers, who by-the-way seem more concerned with their perverted version of 'innovation' then customer satisfaction or avoiding product sunsets.
That's not what rent-seeking means. They're adding value, not manipulating public policy, no regulatory, capture, etc.
I think what you're trying to say is that they're charging more than you think they should. That's not what rent-seeking means.
These apps are providing value and doing so under a subscription model. If you don't think they provide sufficient value, there are almost always loads of competitors. Additionally, it makes no sense to sell a lot of software under a one-time fee. There are significant ongoing costs for support, maintenance, servers, etc. It makes as much sense as selling one-time fee access to the grocery store.
In many (most, imo) cases the value added is minimal, sometimes added seemingly only to justify the monthly costs.
And it is very much rent-seeking. How could you not describe big 5's lobbying activities as conducted at least partially for regulatory capture? Look who is in charge of the FTC and FCC, particularly that one kid that tried to act cool to tech geeks, what's-his-name.
And that is not even what I meant by rent seeking. We are seeing a new kind, at least in tech: subjugation of consumers means of production, achieved by carefully dispensing bits through services instead of allowing customers to retain control of them (via un-drm'd media or downloads). The purpose of this change is to create more revenue for the owner.... which is rent-seeking. Similar things have been going on for years with consumer stables... DollarShaveClub's One Wipe Charlies (expensive) to replace toilet paper (cheap), or juicero (expensive) to replace a blender and fruit (cheap). Chemical cleaners (expensive) instead of centuries-old natural techniques (cheap) even when chemicals are inappropriate to the cleaning job. And so on...
Guardian for 2.50 a month. How much did newspapers cost?
10 a month for VPN service. You have to rent a server right?
80 bucks for Dropbox a year. How much does that external terabyte hard drive cost, let alone the syncing feature.
Not to mention that a lot of stuff is in easily exportable formats....
There's always going to be one off apps, but most of this stuff is too nice to be supported by one off purchases (far before it's considered "done"). Paying 100 dollars a month for premium software when we spend all our time in our computer is ... Fine I think.
Though the counterargument is that I wouldn't spend 100 bucks a month on chairs.