[tallanvor]

It's not backwards, but nothing is black and white.

An example of where looking at the cost per use makes sense is a gym membership. --If I consider the gym is worth, say, $5/visit and it costs $50/month, then I know I have to go at least 10 times a month to feel like I'm getting what I'm paying for.

On the other hand, yeah, my phone is not something that I'm going to try and figure out a cost per use, not the least because each use has a different intrinsic value to me (contacting someone is more valuable than checking the news, at least for me).

[kqr]

> then I know I have to go at least 10 times a month to feel like I'm getting what I'm paying for.

This is also dangerously close to going backwards about it. Figuring out how much you need to do something purely to "get your money's worth" out of it is the sunk cost fallacy!

It's better to start from how many times you want to go to the gym, multiply it with your desired cost per visit, and then see if this total exceeds the cost of the membership.

I know that's what you were suggesting, but the way you presented it seems to me, well, backwards!

[ghaff]

>It's better to start from how many times you want to go to the gym

Which you may or may not get close to.

It's easier with subscriptions generally. It's a good idea to constantly be reviewing how much you're using the subscription and how much value/benefit you're getting from it. And of course, that equation can change over time if the subscription fee goes up or you stop using something as much.