Investor pumps 50 million Euro into NI

[elassi]

These companies want subscription models to ensure consistent monthly (quarterly, really) income but they can't get that from people without reliable income themselves. This model will eventually filter out every consumer who's in the lower-middle-class to poverty range. I'm sure that'll be good for everyone... [rolls eyes]

There's another aspect to it that is known to happen to quite a few poor people getting in trouble: They simply lose overview about their monthly bills while at the same time being psychologically tricked. $9.99 per month sounds cheap while it isn't (or, at least for them). That's why it is always recommended by helping organizations to stay away from installment plans and buy-now-pay-later-offers. While these make you at least the owner eventually - in opposite to plain rent models!

Of course it doesn't mean that sensible people have to be told about this kind of traps. But unfortuantely it happens too often so people have to be warned again and again.

[wetdentist]

i'm old enough to remember when NI released the Maschine Jam, and they said "Song Layer" was just about ready & users would then be able to record performances. not much of a peep about it ever since. sometimes i tweet at them, asking about that, and i get no response. i can't wait to subscribe to that!

[sjm]

Cause or effect? If you're spending more money on your software, it stands to reason you'll be poorer.

No it doesnt. If you're spending more money on your software and your income remains the same you'll be poorer than you would have been.

Spending more money on software doesnt preclude a rise in income based on using that software though. You cant draw an absolute conclusion from incomplete results.

Also note that 'poorer than you would have been'; it's relative to ones own existing level of wealth, its not inherent that 'spending more money on your software' makes you poor. Leveraging from 'poverty' to 'poorer than you would have been' is misleading.

Essentially, people who are (already) poor can't pay up-front. Paying in instalments costs more. So those who are poor often end up spending more on the same things, and that makes it harder to save up money and stop being poor, because you have additional overheads to cover. This isn't just true for buy vs subscription, but for any purchases made on credit etc. Low barrier to entry, but costs more in the long run.

Essentially they fall for the fallacy you posted earlier, that it's easier to find a few bucks each month and pay more in the long run, than save up the money and buy it outright.

A hypothetical "you might earn more" doesn't make that any less true. I don't see how you can conclude that using software will make you richer, therefore paying more for software subscriptions helps poor people. I know that's not really what you are saying, but potential future income has no bearing on the cost of purchase.

[Jace-BeOS]

This model will eventually filter out every consumer who's in the lower-middle-class to poverty range.

Not sure how you figure that. If you're in the 'poverty range' then finding a few bucks each month is a lot easier than finding a couple of hundred as a one-off.

I can save a few hundred over a year or two by scrounging a few bucks one month, ten the next month, maybe even 30 to 50 some other month, and then nothing the next month and a few bucks after that. It's the lack of consistency that's the issue.

I can't and won't add another monthly bill because of the variation. I can only just barely justify Netflix at 10.59 per month and internet itself at just under $50. I recently changed from shitty slow and unreliable Verizon DSL at over $65 per month to quite decent local cable modem at under $50... this was a net gain, and then my electric bill (which is already on a controlled income program) jumped up about $10.

[Jace-BeOS]

This model will eventually filter out every consumer who's in the lower-middle-class to poverty range.

Not sure how you figure that. If you're in the 'poverty range' then finding a few bucks each month is a lot easier than finding a couple of hundred as a one-off.

Cause or effect? If you're spending more money on your software, it stands to reason you'll be poorer. I have yet to see a subscription model that works out cheaper in the long run if you actually intend to use the software regularly.

It's how pay-by-installment works after all, low barrier to entry, gouge them over time. And it's the people without the money to pay upfront that are those getting gouged.

Excellent points. As a person in poverty, I spend more money on smaller sizes/amounts of things now as a poor person than I did when I could afford to buy bulk product. The money I can utilize up front it smaller, so bulk purchase is out of my reach, and ultimately I'm spending more money than I was when I wasn't poor and could spend more up front.

[Jace-BeOS]

These companies want subscription models to ensure consistent monthly (quarterly, really) income but they can't get that from people without reliable income themselves. This model will eventually filter out every consumer who's in the lower-middle-class to poverty range. I'm sure that'll be good for everyone... [rolls eyes]

There's another aspect to it that is known to happen to quite a few poor people getting in trouble: They simply lose overview about their monthly bills while at the same time being psychologically tricked. $9.99 per month sounds cheap while it isn't (or, at least for them). That's why it is always recommended by helping organizations to stay away from installment plans and buy-now-pay-later-offers. While these make you at least the owner eventually - in opposite to plain rent models!

Of course it doesn't mean that sensible people have to be told about this kind of traps. But unfortuantely it happens too often so people have to be warned again and again.

Agreed. A small fee on a regular basis will catch less cautious spenders, rather than a large one-time fee. Ultimately, people spend more in the long term because they think it's less costly. People with tight incomes will often excuse this because "hey it's just a few bucks extra a month", and then do the same for the next thing, and the next... this is EXACTLY how credit card companies make vast amounts of money and ultimately ruin people. People extend their debt burden until it all comes crashing down.

[Jace-BeOS]

...and sorry for probably repeating myself and the others who responded here on this issue...

[elassi]

Agreed. A small fee on a regular basis will catch less cautious spenders, rather than a large one-time fee. Ultimately, people spend more in the long term because they think it's less costly. People with tight incomes will often excuse this because "hey it's just a few bucks extra a month", and then do the same for the next thing, and the next... this is EXACTLY how credit card companies make vast amounts of money and ultimately ruin people. People extend their debt burden until it all comes crashing down.

Furthermore the fees and costs (i.e. for adhortatory letters invoiced by specialised lawyers) if the payment is stopped drastically extend the original bill that had to be paid. I've seen a couple of people in that dilemma and more than one time they simply don't read those invoices anymore - thus getting into more trouble.

This is known and taken into account by certain sellers as well as the peple who charge and profit from those extra costs.

There's a reason why the mentioned help organizations exist...

[kmonkey]

Breaking news:

Investor pull 50 million Euros back from NI - after reading KVR thread.

This is the end of Europe as we know it.