[Denzel]

Semi-rhetorical question: why do customers accept something like this delivered in SaaS form? It seems so antithetical to customer obsession when this is the exact type of problem that lends itself well to a locally running application.

Why not deliver this as a desktop application that users download and pay for one-time? There’s absolutely no need for an ongoing subscription to a backend service here. Outside of rent-seeking.

[michaelbuckbee]

Semi-rhetorical answer:

1. It still provides more value than the monthly subscription.

2. People have shown a greater willingness to pay for ongoing features and support in a SAAS model than in other formats.

3. It better aligns with the costs of support and maintenance that the provider needs to provide.

4. It's less risky for the consumer to get started.

5. There's no piracy or people decompiling your app and putting it out under their own name.

6. No updates to fiddle with and works across machines.

Not all answers above directly apply to the podcast->video service here but these are the general reasons.

[csallen]

I built and sold an installable application in the past, and #5 was brutal. For some reason it's rarely discussed.

[ThomPete]

I had a customer openly admit to me that they had been using a pirated version of my app until now.

Pretty crazy when you see your own app on torrent sites.

[scarejunba]

Exactly, a SaaS product is the ultimate DRM and it's socially acceptable. Make this a native app that needs always-on internet and customers who care about it being native will flip and eat your margins like a giant Pareto Pacman.

[z3ncyberpunk]

Only when your goal is making money and not making apps to further humanity

[ArnoVW]

Making money allows you to invest. If you can't make money, the scope of what is possible is restricted to "what one guy can make as a hobby".

Not all problems are workable within that constraint.

[manigandham]

For most people, money is a tool and not a goal.

Can you share some examples of how you've furthered humanity while living for free?

[tempestn]

Can't you do both? Why should people be expected to work for free?

[ThomPete]

I thought the idea was that you were allowed to make money by furthering humanity?

I've spent a lot of time on my app and I still had to pay people to help do the app.

[pjc50]

Until the UBI arrives I still have to work for money.

[RussianCow]

Isn't that implied if you charge money for your app?

[Denzel]

Mind giving details on the product and experience? I’m interested.

[crispyporkbites]

If your app was a SaaS those people wouldn’t have paid for it anyway, they’d have signed up for the free trial then quit and signed up with a fresh email over and over.

The best thing you can do is identify them and segment them into beta / test updates for experimental features which you wouldn’t test on paying users.

[Axsuul]

I run a SaaS and in my case, this doesn't happen. Not only is it super annoying for the user but you lose all your data each time.

[Denzel]

All fair points, a mix of which some focus on customer benefit and others on benefit to the business. Perhaps the motivation behind my question was wondering whether there’s an opportunity to eat SaaS margins with products that compete by changing the distribution, and whether there’s any market data to support that hypothesis.

1, 4, and 6 align with the customer. 4 could be alleviated even with a local application a la Sublime Text. I concede 6 is marginally easier to manage, but then again represents a con from the customer perspective in that the software they’re using could disappear at any time since they don’t own it.

JetBrains model seems to represent the best compromise to the customer here: subscription fee for constant updates and support, cancel anytime and keep your current version with no updates or support.

2, 3, 5 benefit the business, not the customer. In fact 3 is probably the most beneficial to the business in that cost of support and maintenance isn’t aligned, they’re decoupled! Hence the 70-80% margins this company is touting.

5 is brutal as csallen said, but then again there are counterpoints to this in that people will certainly pay and not pirate for the right experience: iTunes, Kindle, etc. even when the pirated versions are readily available.

I appreciate your response.

[sanderjd]

A eureka moment is realizing that customers interests are actually aligned with businesses being profitable. If the business provides the customer with something they want - and they usually do, if the customer is willing to pay them money at all - then it is in their best interest for the business to continue operating, which means it is in their interest for the business to have a profitable business model. This is part of why you see a bias toward big companies winning sales, even at a higher price point: there is less risk that they will go out of business and leave you in a lurch. It isn't actually in the customers interest for a business to barely or not at all be able to make ends meet, which is what your proposed business model has often led to.

[Denzel]

I'm not disputing that customer interests are aligned with a business's profitability insomuch as they'll be around to continue to provide you the product or service you want. We agree here.

I'm simply wondering if there's a "your margin is my opportunity" play here where a company could devour SaaS companies by changing the distribution model. That's all. This thought has been banging around in my head for the past couple years due to a few data points, but I haven't had time to formally test the hypothesis.

That's all it is: a hypothesis that there's an opportunity here to change the distribution model to one that focuses on the customer and destroy a large number of SaaS models.

[sanderjd]

I think what you need to consider is how that opportunity looks different than the business models that SaaS overtook, and how it solves the problems that led to those models being overtaken. I'm sure SaaS isn't the last software business model we'll ever have, but your response to the list of questions read to me like it lacked understanding of why SaaS won the most recent battle.

[freehunter]

Number two certainly benefits the consumer, speaking as a consumer. Back in the old days you had the choice of paying hundreds of dollars for some software, then hundreds more for the next version, then hundreds more for the next one and so on. And if you wanted to try it but wasn't sure you'd actually use it, you either had to pray there was a demo or pay the full price and deal with the consequences.

Microsoft Office, for example. $250 license cost every three years, or $99/year for the SaaS model. If you want to try it, you pay $10 for a month and if you don't like it you lost $10 rather than $250. And if you subscribe long term, the SaaS version's pricing is very much on par with the old style of selling software.

[Denzel]

All of your concerns are alleviated with a simple return policy. (A customer-focused benefit.)

[freehunter]

How much software have you bought that has a return policy? Darn near every software product I’ve ever bought specifically says there is no return policy after the license key has been entered.

[scarface74]

Anytime a business model allows a company to profitably provide a product that a customer wants, its good for both the consumer and producer - barring negative externalities.

The alternative is the company going out of business and not providing the product or the company’s founders getting acqui-hired followed by a final “Our Amazing Journey” blog post before the product is cancelled.

[Denzel]

> Anytime a business model allows a company to profitably provide a product that a customer wants, its good for both the consumer and producer

I never said anything to the contrary?

[austhrow743]

A subscription as opposed to an upfront one time payment allows them to pay on a timescale that more accurately reflects the value they are receiving. This is generally a good thing.

Renting is often exactly what businesses want to do. They have better uses for their money than pre-purchasing all of their future expenses. They rent office space, lease cars, pay salaries fortnightly instead of at the start of the year, pay for their inventory not only as they receive it rather than in advance, but often on terms of credit. Software doesn't have a reason to be an exception to this. If I can pay $X now or $X spread over a number of years, I'm going to pick the latter.

The payment terms of a product are effectively part of the product itself. I'm in sales and I've won and lost deals against comparatively priced competitors on the basis that my/their pricing schedule better matched what the prospect wanted.

I took renting to mean just ongoing payments by the way. If you meant rent seeking as in the concept in economics then 1. this isn't it and 2. using IP law to prop up the value of locally installable software would be a closer example of it than doing so by keeping some of the code under your own control is.

[oDot]

The explanation is that this is probably the best offering they're aware of, and whatever the price is, it's less than the value they receive.

[hobofan]

With this specific product, I would argue that being OS and desktop independent is actually a feature. I can imagine that a significant amount of the users might even upload the videos to their social media profiles from their phone.

The choice is between maintaining 2 mobile apps + a desktop app that is compatible with macOS and Windows and maintaining a single webapp.

[pjc50]

It looks to me like the video isn't "trapped" in their app - in fact it's intended to be uploaded elsewhere? So once you've used it, you only need to continue paying if you're continuing to use it.

That's the opposite of rent-seeking, that's .. charging money for a service.

[duxup]

I've kinda reached the point where I don't want to install anything... unless I'm 100% sure I want it.

I'm happy to do a free trial, and have it instantly accessible on all my devices that have a browser and etc.

[lotsofpulp]

> Why not deliver this as a desktop application that users download and pay for one-time?

Because when given the option, sellers usually choose more money than less money.

Anyone is welcome to create a competing product and take their margins.

[raverbashing]

And buyers choose less money over more money.

The one time purchase could have been, let's say, $20, but if I want to use it a couple of times, paying $5 per month might be a better deal. And you're always getting the latest version

[QuantumGood]

Customers "accept" an explanation of value vs. alternatives, which is largely marketing communication.

Your second (main?) point: "no need" / "rent-seeking" is addressed well by michaelbuckbee, particularly point #5.

[ivanhoe]

One-time fee means that you pay more money upfront. Plus you have to install it, which is both a security issue and unnecessary hassle if you don't like it and need to uninstall it. If you change your machine you need to reinstall the app. If you need it from more than one location (home, office) you need to pay for more licenses. Support is way more complicated for desktop apps. And then next year they release a new version of the app, and you need to pay for the upgrade, so it's pretty much the same dynamics as annual subscription.

[register]

To me the easiest answer is that they are leveraging FFMPEG which is GPL. If they had embedded it in a mobile or desktop application they would have had to release it as open source.

[devinplatt]

Cash flow? If it was a one time purchase they'd have to charge more upfront.

Also maybe there could be automation with this service that saves time?

[heliodor]

The main point people make about differentiating your digital product is to not compete on price. A lower price means less money for advertising and marketing, so a losing proposition.

What you're proposing with the one-time upfront fee model is to compete on price, so smart entrepreneurs steer clear of that model.

[exclusiv]

I like SaaS but one time has the advantage of being able to use more money on growth. So if you have your acquisition dialed in it can be advantageous to offer a larger annual or lifetime model.

[Denzel]

Have to disagree with your conclusion, counterpoint being Jeff Bezos who maintains a number (a majority?) of business lines that compete on price.

[jcytong]

Maybe you can do it and compete with them?

[autonoshitbox]

Customers are typically stupid, cash-rich and easily exploited.

[stallmanite]

Sounds like you are really good at finding customers.

[autonoshitbox]

Correct.