The theory is simple: instead of buying a household item or a piece of clothing or some equipment you might use once or twice, you take it out and return it.
The theory is simple: instead of buying a household item or a piece of clothing or some equipment you might use once or twice, you take it out and return it.
Hmm. It sounds to me you just don’t want to acknowledge when you’re being taken for a ride.
But hey, to each their own.
Businesses want a lifeline to our wallets, which is why subscriptions and renting are pushed on useful idiots.
I feel like digital software subscriptions have stigmatized subscriptions in general. Subscriptions are great for things that require constant investment to be meaningful. One subscribes to news and receive constant reporting on the latest news; one subscribes to a tool library and get access to nearly every tool one can need. Plus a large part of the article is about non-profit libraries anyway.
The problem is that you’re renting access to something you’re not actually consuming.
Once you stop paying, you lose access and have nothing to show for it. They still have your money, though.
This is different than, say, paying for electricity which is consumed and no longer available for either party after consumption.
Sorry bud, you’re defending being scammed.
Nice talking point just to cover your bum from shilling.
This isn’t new, everything has it’s place.
We rented a trench digger for the day from Home Depot in the 90s instead of buying one for thousands of dollars. That trench didn’t magically go away when we returned the tool. That we didn’t have access to the tool anymore was the plan.
Renting a U-haul for a move is incredibly more efficient than daily driving a giant box truck. Somehow, the things stay moved once the truck is returned.
You didn’t subscribe to those things.
So you just didn’t read the article?
Renting is the “subscription” you’re complaining about. You’re right that rent-to-own is a scam at best, but unlike most digital subscriptions you’re using the thing to do something. Like with all rentals there’s a break even line where you would’ve been better buying the thing if you use it often/long enough. But the service existing is not itself a bad thing.
Oh my god dude renting has been a thing for millenia.
It’s not nearly as bad as it is now.
And it was always a scam, even back then.
But you are effectively consuming them. Just like renting books and movies, you nearly always don’t need it again after you return it.
Nice talking point just to cover your bum from shilling.
No, you’re not. Consuming something means it is no longer available after consumption. We can’t “consume” media unless we destroy it afterwards.
Sorry, you’ve been played by industry talking points just to get you to spend as much money as possible. Now you’re doing your part in perpetuating them.
There’s a term for people like you, but I’ll refrain from using it here.
Goodbye. You may have the last word since you need to push your products on others.
Ah yes, buying everything you don’t need too long isn’t consumerism but renting and reusing is
“We can share books if you pay me to maintain the book sharing system via a non optional tax.” Universally loved system.
“We can share tools if you pay me to maintain those tools via a non optional tax.” A niche program most libraries have.
“We can share tools if you pay me to maintain those tools via an subscription where I have a profit incentive.” Literally 1984 and late stage capitalism.
Yep.