undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTechDebtDevin8mo ago0 comments

I agree with your take, but I still don't excuse anti consumer practices like that. It annoys me because this is a repeat problem in this space, where these companies don't take into account the market dynamics, or costs of their service. From the start I've been looking at these $20.00 subscriptions, and then my own personal api per token costs and been wondering how they aren't all bankrupt.

Look no further than founders in the sports betting space, like the fanduel founders. Borrow a bunch of money at huge valuations because of hype and ignore the fact, that despite it being exciting and popular, the margins are like <5%. Fanduel founders sold for 400 something million, walked away with nothing. Its now a multibillion dollar company when the new owners realized the product was marketing, not the vig. These AI companies are shifting towards their "marketing" eras.

0 comments

sbarre8mo ago

I think any "value add" business that has a primary product built on top of another larger business' non-commodity service(s) runs the risk of having to re-do their pricing in ways that are outside their control.

This is nothing new. I'm not sure if it's "anti-consumer" as much as it's just a risky play from a brand and customer happiness viewpoint. Because your prices can be forced up by your supplier, and your customers will be mad at you, not at your supplier.

I do also think it is on consumers - in some part - to go into it with eyes open and do their research.

Thankfully a product like Cursor is a monthly sub and not a big up-front investment so if you don't like - or can't afford - the new pricing, you can just stop paying.

TechDebtDevinOP8mo ago

I think my primary concern are the customers who paid $220 for a yearly subscription, only for it to get nerfed and asked to pay $200.00 a month to get similar output.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse