Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jay Verkuilen" data-source="post: 7724932" data-attributes="member: 6873517">Exactly. I don't think many buyers are particularly aware of it. You're an example of someone for whom their current business model works very well, evidently! I would be happier if they released things I was interested in and felt solid about. E-content to me I really don't. I am OK with streaming though for a long time I was just a buyer but now consider paying a streaming service monthly fee to be essentially a rental service for access (and simultaneously a way for me not to have to have the ridiculous amount of RL storage for a collection). That's premised on my feeling that those streaming services are likely to survive but even if they don't, I won't have a big one-time purchase down and I can cancel when I want. Maybe if I amortized the cost over time it might make sense. However, their proliferation of possible delivery services feels like it's setting up for multiple purchases, some of which are likely to disappear when the inevitable contraction happens. If I was loving their content I might go... eh, OK, and buy. But I'm not. Part of my resistance here comes from my own professional life experience where a market leader software vendor (SPSS, now owned by IBM) pulled similar ploys by going from a comprehensible and straightforward licensing model in the late 1990s and over the course of the 2000s made it progressively more arcane, meanwhile raising prices and/or messing with licensing terms as they transitioned from a company adding value to being a rentier. They felt they had a lock on the market due to user loyalty....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jay Verkuilen, post: 7724932, member: 6873517"] Exactly. I don't think many buyers are particularly aware of it. You're an example of someone for whom their current business model works very well, evidently! I would be happier if they released things I was interested in and felt solid about. E-content to me I really don't. I am OK with streaming though for a long time I was just a buyer but now consider paying a streaming service monthly fee to be essentially a rental service for access (and simultaneously a way for me not to have to have the ridiculous amount of RL storage for a collection). That's premised on my feeling that those streaming services are likely to survive but even if they don't, I won't have a big one-time purchase down and I can cancel when I want. Maybe if I amortized the cost over time it might make sense. However, their proliferation of possible delivery services feels like it's setting up for multiple purchases, some of which are likely to disappear when the inevitable contraction happens. If I was loving their content I might go... eh, OK, and buy. But I'm not. Part of my resistance here comes from my own professional life experience where a market leader software vendor (SPSS, now owned by IBM) pulled similar ploys by going from a comprehensible and straightforward licensing model in the late 1990s and over the course of the 2000s made it progressively more arcane, meanwhile raising prices and/or messing with licensing terms as they transitioned from a company adding value to being a rentier. They felt they had a lock on the market due to user loyalty.... [/QUOTE]

Verification