[not_exactly__]

Yes. But it’s also useless if they go out of business period. I know, I know, opensource it in the event of bankruptcy and continue receiving security updates and what not. But when as that ever actually panned out?

Tbh, I don’t know why subscriptions get such a bad rap on HN. recurring revenue (ie subscription) is actually one of the best tool we have for ensuring the products/services we depend on don’t go under.

[vincnetas]

No, the whole premise with “personal server” is and should be that company going out of busines would have no efect on server and data on it. It should continue working exactly like it did when you bought it. This means that mandatory subscription is a dealbreaker. Optional subscription on the other hand would be just like additional service for which you could pay if you incapable of doing something yourself or through third party.

[not_exactly__]

I understand the premise fine. I’m just saying it’s an unrealistic expectation.

For example, “should continue working exactly like it did” sounds nice, but what happens when the company is out of business and your server’s kernel needs a kernel patch due to a security issue? Sure the server still works, but you probably shouldn’t be using it if you in fact want something that’s private/secure.

[tpxl]

> Tbh, I don’t know why subscriptions get such a bad rap on HN

Because a lot of the times things don't need a subscription, but it's just a way for the company to squeeze more money out of you.

Some things you can't buy of course, like a streaming service, and I do pay for them. However, I will never 'rent' an online movie which I can only watch once or some such bullshit where the limitation is 0% technical and 100% someone wanting more money out of me.

[not_exactly__]

> I will never rent an online movie

Why not? I do it all the time for a simple economic reason: renting is $2.99 and buying is $14.99.

If I haven’t seen the movie yet and I don’t feel super strongly about it, I don’t feel like paying the full price. Of course if I end up loving the movie and want to buy it, I’ll end up having spent an extra $2.99 to rent something I now plan to own. But I can’t remember ever doing that. I rent. I watch. I move on.

Also I wouldn’t buy a movie that I can’t store in a physical format.

[tpxl]

> Why not?

1. "Buying" is usually 15$ in my experience, not 3$.

2. Like said, the limitation is not technical, it's purely milking users.

3. I like to own stuff and sometimes play older games and watch older movies. Renting is just a non-starter for that, unless you want to overpay out the nose.

[2Gkashmiri]

hehe. In india, a couple months ago they did an experiment of launching a big ticket movie online for the first time. Here is how they put it, after you pay . open this page https://www.zee5.com/zee-plex-movies-on-rent and click on how it works. then "How to buy and watch ZEEPLEX movies?".

they say "buy and watch" but then say "pay per view service", then there are stupid watch time requirements and all that.

piracy is 1 click, just press play. then these idiots go and equate piracy as a heinous crime