I think a common factor on why torrents are having a resurgence and illegal streaming services are getting more traction, is subscription fatigue. Subscription fatigue doesn’t only contain itself to streaming services, movies or music, nowadays you’re also expected to subscribe to every app you download. Whether it’s a meditation app, a budgeting app (looking at YNAB that went from a one-time purchase to a really expensive subscription model), the Adobe suite, the MS Office suite, your Peloton bike that you’ve already paid hundreds of dollars for (referencing the earlier article on them establishing a startup fee for buying used bikes), or a podcast app where the money doesn’t even go to the podcasters themselves.

Is there a peak for this? I feel like subscriptions are becoming more of a rule than an exception. Having the ability to directly purchase digital goods seems more like a thing of the past. It’s just so stupid. But apparently people don’t care? They just keep paying for this? Apparently it’s still worth it for companies to establish a subscription model, even if there are no benefits for the customer, just the company. What are your thoughts? What can we do to stop it?

  • overload@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I completely agree with you in principle for people who want their software updated, but there is some software that is standalone and doesn’t depend upon changing codecs/APIs etc. Something like myfitnesspal or a thermomix shouldn’t be a subscription, there is no major updates to how someone tracks their exercise uses a hot blender that justifies it beyond users being locked in.

    In the example of thermomix, you’ve already paid top dollar for the hardware, getting locked out of functionality you’ve paid for stings.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      In the olden days software used to be sold by individual major versions. You paid for version 9, you paid for version 10. Or you skipped versions you didn’t need. You could use versions side by side. The newest installed would import its data from the older ones. etc.

      App stores have made this very awkward or almost impossible. There’s no concept of separating major versions. You’d have to buy and install completely different apps to be able to pay for them separately and to use them side by side, but if they’re separate apps they can’t import your data from each other. Not to mention that people seem to hate having “too many apps” for some reason.

      Software subscriptions switch the “support per major version” to “support per time of use”. It’s obviously shittier but it’s more realistic than a one-time price and expecting to use the app in all future versions in perpetuity. The one time price would have to be very large to be realistic.

      • Treedrake@fedia.ioOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is an interesting point as well. Before, if you weren’t happy with an update or whatnot, you could just keep running the older version. But nowadays that’s impossible in many cases.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          TBF in most cases forced app obsolescence is on the developers. Some of them are super aggressive and will force you to update without really needing it. Like, come on, package tracking app, I really don’t believe you’re unable to show me the package pick-up barcode without updating. 🙄

          But yeah, on iOS it’s completely impossible to get older versions, once you’ve updated something that’s it. And even on Android I’ve noticed that it’s become impossible to downgrade some apps even if I have the old apk, the Google installer simply fails to install it if I’ve ever had a newer version installed.

    • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Something like myfitnesspal or a thermomix shouldn’t be a subscription, there is no major updates to how someone tracks their exercise uses a hot blender that justifies it beyond users being locked in.

      I won’t dispute that both of these likely abuse the subscription model for their benefit. But they definitely have a social responsibility (and in many cases a legal responsibility) to keep updating the software in these products and the network infrastructure that go with them. The internet of things is one of the most vulnerable attack vectors we have. It has been exploited many times not just to attack individuals, but to create massive bot nets that can target corporations or even countries. The onus is on the manufacturer to continuously keep that at bay. You know what they say - the “S” in “IOT” stands for security.

      • overload@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I agree that IOT things need to be secure. Is it really too much to ask that apps/devices are made secure from the ground up?

        To stay on the thermomix, all the subcription is is a connection to their servers to give access to their live step by step recipes. Surely that’s just a secure end-to-end encrypted connection? I’m not a developer but it doesn’t sound like buyers should be expected to pay the manufacturer to maintain beyond buying a thermomix/upgrading to new versions of the hardware when they want to access any new features.

        • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Is it really too much to ask that apps/devices are made secure from the ground up?

          In a way, yes. They can and should definitely be made with security in mind from the ground up. But they will never be totally secure, and a necessary part of what constitutes a “secure product” is to continuously and quickly patch security issues as they become known.

          Surely that’s just a secure end-to-end encrypted connection?

          I would bet it’s still a bit more than that. But even if it’s just a secure end-to-end encrypted connection, here is the list of vulnerabilities fixed in OpenSSL (which is probably what they use for secure encrypted connections). It’s five so far in 2024. Then there’s some OS kernel below that which can have security issues as well. The Thermomix probably also has user authorization components and payment methods, plus various personal information that has to be protected under GDPR.

          • overload@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Hmmm… okay it sounds like the subscription model does actually make some sense for devices that need to maintain an internet connection/IoT applications. Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.

      • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I won’t dispute that both of these likely abuse the subscription model for their benefit. But they definitely have a social responsibility (and in many cases a legal responsibility) to keep updating the software in these products and the network infrastructure that go with them.

        I mean, it would be zero cost if it was a fucking normal device. Someone had the idea that a juice squeezer or a toaster should be online… for… what, exactly? Remove the online (or even better, remove the software), you completely remove the cost that you want impugn on the user with “subscriptions”.