[evrydayhustling]

All the account creation friction sucks, but I'll defend the price. It's a subscription because the value you get depends on how long you use it. Making the price incremental (vs e.g. a one time $100 charge) means more people can try it and get value for a limited time, and only keep it if it continues to add value for them.

Is $100/yr too much? A b2b sales team might spend $400 getting a first meeting with a customer, and $10k more over the course of further meetings. A 1h internal meeting with 10 people might cost thousands in wages. If mmhmm makes a handful of meetings marginally more effective it will pay for itself.

If the product works but the price doesn't, you may not be the intended buyer.

[madeofpalk]

> It's a subscription because the value you get depends on how long you use it

Isn’t that true of all things you purchase?

[evrydayhustling]

Most non-consumables can be rented (and frequently are) just for this reason. We buy things when our use expends or transforms the product (e.g. a house) so that we don't have to coordinate with the owner.

It's nice to be able to buy outright (or download free!) things that we want to maintain, but most software doesn't fit that for most people.

[falcor84]

Well, I suppose not for consumables like food or fuel.

[madeofpalk]

Okay so I'm glad we've agreed that single-use food items shouldn't be a subscription...

[jen20]

But if the product is ok and useful at a cost which users to not want to pay, it’s just a matter of time before equivalent features get integrated into video calling platforms directly.

[ponker]

That’s a different issue not related to the pricing model.