Apps that shouldn't be Subscriptions
Apps that shouldn't be Subscriptions
What is the most useless app that you have seen being given as a subscription?
For me, I tried a 'minimalist' launcher app for Android that had a 7 day trial or something and they had a yearly subscription based model for it. I was aghast. I would literally expect the app to blow my mind and do everything one can assume to go that way. In a world, where Nova Launcher (Yes, I know it has been acquired by Branch folks but it still is a sturdy one) or Niagara exist plus many alternatives including minimalist ones on F Droid, the dev must be releasing revolutionary stuff to factor in a subscription service.
Second, is a controversial choice, since it's free tier is quite good and people like it so much. But, Pocketcasts. I checked it's yearly price the other day, and boy, in my country, I can subscribe to Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium and Spotify and still have money left before I hit the ceiling what Pocketcasts is asking for paid upgrade.
Also, what are your views on one time purchase vs subscriptions? Personally, I find it much easier to purchase, if it's good enough even if it was piratable, something if it is a one time purchase rather than repetitive.
You're viewing a single thread.
YouTube is a weird one, personally. Why shouldn't it have a subscription based service like any other streaming network? Because the content is not created by, funded by, or even necessarily supported by YouTube.
It would make more sense for the subscription to be put upon uploaders to host the content, since their business is hosting the files, not really the content itself.
Now, if they had a better or at least more transparent way of giving the creators a truly fair cut of the monetary gains earned through their videos I would have nothing against YouTube Premium aside from hating that a completely free service has to move to a paid service.
Nope, that would be horrible.
One of the biggest draws of YouTube is that anyone can go and upload their stuff. We literally have youtubers who started out in their rooms with a webcam, and became big because of the quality of their stuff. This would put a barrier of entry for new youtubers to enter.
I don't agree with this. It creates a monetary barrier to starting a new channel. If uploading costs money the number of uploads is going to reduce considerably, no one likes to throw money away.
100% onboard with this. Just like imgur before it went shit in like 2014. Free uploaders get basic hosting, limited to 1080p, 5 min videos, max of ~5gb uploads, low-priority authentication/verification/approval, monetization/in-video advertising not allowed.
Subscription for 1hr videos, 50gb storage, streaming (50hrs/mth) monetization allowed.
Premium subscription for 4k, arbitrary length, 500gb (can be increased as required for additional cost)
Except Google is established. Paying a company that has shown complete disregard for users and privacy and ethics doesn't work.
An upstart? Sure. They don't have a proven track record of being assholes.