Yep, I'm really happy when this kind of model dies. Even if it means that it's more difficult to innovate, or to launch something new. We will survive.

▲

abirch a day ago | parent | next [-]

I think it'll be more essential to innovate as you can't bully people into continuing to pay for an old product.

▲

rvz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Even if it means that it's more difficult to innovate, or to launch something new. We will survive.

So a monopoly / duopoly is a better alternative?

This makes absolutely no sense and is just completely unrealistic in the economic sense from a startup perspective.

	▲	curtisblaine 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> So a monopoly / duopoly is a better alternative? Why a monopoly/duopoly? Embroidery machine companies will still continue to exist, they just won't be able to sell the machine at a low price point and recoup the money via subscription. It's a business model that has existed for thousands of years: I do the thing, you buy the thing, our business relationship ends. Maybe they will have less money and they will innovate less and they will sell at a higher price. We will survive, they will survive. > completely unrealistic in the economic sense from a startup perspective. Are you implying that startups can only exist if they can access a subscription based revenue? We had thousands of successful startups in the past that made money building typewriters or embroidery machines or hoovers without subscriptions. Not sure why recurring revenue is now a necessary condition to be a startup.