Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Subscription Service 'Setapp' Will Offer 40+ Popular Mac Apps for $9.99 Per Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is the reason I'm still using MS Office 2011 and Adobe Photoshop CS6 on my Mac.
Haha... true.
But the fallacy is thinking that if you get 200 channels for $100 a month... that each channel would be $0.50 each if you could subscribe to them separately or "a la carte"
That would never happen because of the way the cable companies get the channels from the channel owners.
It's not just the cable companies who bundle channels to consumers... it's also the Viacoms and the NBCUniversals of the the world who sell bundles to the cable companies.
If you only wanted one channel... it would probably be $10 a month by itself... which wouldn't be a very good deal.
Besides... I think we should be moving away from linear scheduled television. We live in an on-demand world now. The idea of watching a show at 8pm on a Tuesday seems weird nowadays.
The only scheduled programs should be sports!
Last edited:
There's an app called Bobby, its icon is a squirrel. If you need to save more than 5 subscriptions (I think) you can pay 99 cents for unlimited.
Point is that there is a precedence for subscription based software, there's no reason to believe a Netflix style bundle subscription won't be useful or preferable to some.
Last edited:
If you only wanted one channel, $10 wouldn't be a good deal, it would be a great dea compared to a $100 package. If you only want one channel, it's $100 for one channel vs. $10 for one channel. And it's the same argument for not wanting to buy or rent software as a bundle.
Ok so go back to the old model where you buy software on a CDROM. You pay once and get to keep the CD forever but then a year later they come out with a new version and you buy that and get to keep it, and then next year you buy it again. If you fail to buy the new version then the old version become useless as soon as you upgrade the OS. You are really just renting in either case only now the terms are predictable.
Now look at the cost for business software. You can deduct the price of a rental directly off the top of your gross income but capital has to be depreciated on a multiyear schedule. Renting might work best for those who make a living with their computer.
Me? I will look at the total cost of ownership over the life of the system. I don't use any of the software in this bundle so for me the decision is easy
[doublepost=1479446159][/doublepost]
People hate it because they don't understand it. They think they pay $100 for 100 channels but only watch one channel so they think they should pay $1. No. The way it read works is they pay $80 for the cable with no channels at all then $20 for the 100 channels. So the channels only cost 5 cents each but the cable costs $80. They should expect to pay $90 for a 10 channel package.
It really is like that. To make a TV show all you need is a dog on a skate board and a camera guy but it costs real money to run 200 million miles of cable and mail out 100 million bill every months and basically run a cable company.
Last edited:
I guess my point was... you cannot call your cable company and buy just one channel. They only offer packages of multiple channels. That's how the entire cable TV industry operates.
Time Warner Cable offers two TV packages: 70 channels and 200 channels. The deals they make with the channel owners says they must carry all those channels.
Sure... either of those packages offer far more channels than anyone could ever watch. But that's because they have to appeal to a broad audience. I don't watch anything on Bravo... but someone else will. The point is... the cable company cannot sell you one or two channels.
And even if they could... it would be so expensive that you'd be better off getting a bundle.
What about cord-cutting? Well... even the alternatives offer too many channels in bundles. The cheapest Playstation Vue plan is $30 a month... but you're still stuck with 45 channels. Again... their deals say they must carry all those channels even if you don't want them all.
The dream of "a la carte" is just that... a dream.
No, the cheapest is free over the air broadcast. If you like movies the local library has thousands of them on DVD you can have at no cost.
Yes you CAN have "a la carte". I have an Apple TV box and with it I can rent just one movie. So every few weeks if there is one I want to see I can see just that for just a few $ with no monthly service cost
No. Just no.
Take a look at the screenshot. How many of those apps do you really need?
People have very specific and individual needs when it comes to ulitilies/software. This subscription model will give everyone lots of apps that they will never find use for — even if every single app is awesome at what it does.
Take a look at the screenshot. How many of those apps do you really need?
People have very specific and individual needs when it comes to ulitilies/software. This subscription model will give everyone lots of apps that they will never find use for — even if every single app is awesome at what it does.
I was talking about a la carte cable channels.
You know... the usual response to "I'm paying for 100 channels I don't even watch."
People wish they could subscribe to just a few channels instead of 100. But there are problems with that:
1. Cable companies won't offer it.
2. Even if they did... it would be ridiculously expensive.
So we're stuck with bundles from the various providers.
Yes... over-the-air channels are another option... but that wasn't what I was referring to.
I agree to a large extent. I am not a fan of the subscription model that has become the norm now for almost everything. The whole basis is it makes the products seem cheaper while the company makes more money. There is a reason companies are switching to this model and it isn't because it saves the consumer money.
[doublepost=1479458392][/doublepost]
Kind of like the way Netflix focuses on the main shows/movies everyone watches and ignores the fact that the majority of their available titles are garbage.
interesting concept but depends on the apps, there are many apps out there which are $10-20 for 3-4 years of updates.
People hate on subscription software, but I think its worth it. I rather pay $20 to use Office a month and get all the updates than pay upfront $400 or what it used to cost.
People hate on subscription software, but I think its worth it. I rather pay $20 to use Office a month and get all the updates than pay upfront $400 or what it used to cost.
These are all apps that are offered as part of those discount packages every month by some Mac site or another. Usually $40 for all of them or pay what you want. I'll pass on the subscription.
I could see this being useful but right now it's not at least for me. If they had 120+ apps and you could choose to pick 40 to use, just to pick a random number, it could be intriguing.
I agree with you that owning seems like the better option.
That being said I must add that developers got greedy and started making their "big update" a whole other app. So you paid you think youre good to go and a few months/years later they drop support of v1.0 in favor of their V2.0
This has been the case with 1Password, cleanmymac and even ios apps. You feel like a fool when you thought you'd pay once and be done with it and get stuck paying again a few months/years later.
Some will even go as far as putting ads in their V1.0 to attract people to V2.0, and that's unacceptable.
(In 1Password's defense they usually have upgrade options for previous gen software, but it doesn't make it right)
The old model did not run on annual updates for every piece of software ever, so this wasn't as big of an issue. Major OS revisions came out every few years, and something that ran on an earlier version of an OS usually worked just fine for a few versions down the road.
"Annual updates" are an artificial way to project value, whether they actually add it or not. Microsoft's habit of redesigning the Office UI or Apple's removal of features (see: OS X Server, Final Cut) are fantastic examples of why not every update is a step forward.
While I understand your POV, the only reason many of the channels survive is being part of a bundle. If cable didn't bundle you'd only have a handful of the most popular channels; those who have a loyal, but small, following would not make enough money to survive. With the bundle they get a very small payment from each of the bundle subscribers, and thus can stay in business.
I don't get people who complain about this. Are you no longer able to go to the developer of an individual app in this package and pay them money for a license? If not, then as you were complainers, because nothing has changed except more options when purchasing.
Something like this would be more useful to me in packages, such as a photography or design package, but I guess you have to start somewhere? That being said, I've tried some of these apps before. They're usually the crap that's offered alongside a couple apps you really want in a typical Mac app bundle. Many of them are either garbageware that is rarely updated. At best they do something almost as good as what my professional tools do, but split across several apps which ruins my productive workflow.
Something like this would be more useful to me in packages, such as a photography or design package, but I guess you have to start somewhere? That being said, I've tried some of these apps before. They're usually the crap that's offered alongside a couple apps you really want in a typical Mac app bundle. Many of them are either garbageware that is rarely updated. At best they do something almost as good as what my professional tools do, but split across several apps which ruins my productive workflow.
I actually don't mind this ... Especially if new apps are added all the time. That would be nice if a lot of Adobe alternatives were bundled with this