Paying for Features

[VinceInMT]

First off, I’m more of film person but I do shoot quite a bit with my iPhone and, sometimes, an older Canon PowerShot. I recently read an article about how, in the automotive industry, companies are requiring paid subscriptions to unlock specific features like remote start, heated seats, etc. I got to wondering if that has taken place in the digital photography world. I know that some software is now using a pay-as-you-go model where in the past one could buy a disc, install it, and it was good for as long as the hardware runs. After all, I’m still using Pagemaker 6.0 for my desktop publishing needs and that has to be nearly 30 years old. But have makers of digital cameras caught on to this revenue stream? Would one have to pay to set a higher ISO? Or a higher shutter speed? To access a higher pixel count? Would this be something you’d be interested in seeing?

 

[guangong]

You should keep such evil thoughts to yourself!

 

[MattKing]

At one time I owned a 35mm through medium format scanner - a Minolta Multi-Scan - whose medium format resolution could be upgraded through a software upgrade that was available at a cost.
That allowed users to decide what functionality they needed, and to pay for what they needed.
But that was easy to implement - and it is the implementation that is the challenge.
If you want an old time example of what you are suggesting, the accessory manual exposure control add-on for the Olympus OM-10 would be a good example.

 

[VinceInMT]

That allowed users to decide what functionality they needed, and to pay for what they needed.

Yes, that is the selling point. However, in many devices the consumer is paying for the hardware which is built into the object, whether they will use it or not. For example, BMWs come with heated seats, which means the heating apparatus is installed in the factory but they do not operate with paying a fee.

I’m not pro or con this approach, just observing. These “micro-transactions” are just becoming more common.

 

[KerrKid]

I think this falls under the heading of greed. I’m no fan of it unless it’s mine.)) The features that manufacturers are locking away are built into the price of the product. It doesn’t cost the manufacturer anything for you to use them. Hobbling the features and then forcing you to pay if you want to use them is just another way to rip you off.

That business model could be adopted by camera companies so that you would pay to open up additional program modes in your camera. Again, though, that’s still extortion since the modes wouldn’t cost the company anything for you to use.

 

[Moose22]

I’m not pro or con this approach, just observing. These “micro-transactions” are just becoming more common.

Small niggle, but this isn't micro transactions. At least the BMW example. It's a straight up subscription fee. Microtransactions would be very small payments on a per use basis, like if I subscribe to a weather service and pay a fraction of a penny each time I poll the API to pull data, that'd be microtransactions.

I haven't seen this in digital cameras yet. I'm using Nikon and still get a few years of occasional firmware updates and have never seen paid support beyond that.

They are pretty old school though. I don't know about any other makers or cell phone, so it could be. I'll be interested to hear if anyone has encountered it.

As for the BMW example, I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever purchase that car just on principle. It was a case of the consumer both paying for the hardware and then having to pay more for permission to use it. There's no over the air upgrading heated seats, or need to do so. There's no software maintenance necessary. There is literally no cost to cover or benefit to doing so that wasn't already paid for by the consumer. In fact, it's more expensive for the consumer because the connectivity has to be built in just so BMW can disable your shit. It was very cynical and done entirely to see if they could get away with it, and is about the worst possible example of this sort of business model.

Something like Peloton, which I would not pay for personally, comes with online classes to ride along to. Even an Adobe subscription comes with upgraded versions and includes things like lens profiles for new lenses, support for new cameras, etc. In theory, it's subscription for service. You're paying for content creation, software maintenance, security, development, maybe server time and data storage. If you're not getting that, but you STILL have to pay full boat for the hardware, the value proposition breaks down.

I wonder if there's a compelling argument for this in the digital camera world. Unless we're talking a completely different sort of feature, like connectivity. Maybe you can OTA backup your photos via 5G/wifi, or something like that, where possibly a value proposition could be developed.

New digital cameras have largely been a new physical product with rare exceptions like... I dunno. Maybe eye detect on a firmware upgrade which wasn't there for the initial release of the Z6. Mostly firmware has been bug fixes and profiles for new Nikkor lenses. You can't upgrade to a faster processor or a higher resolution sensor with firmware.

 

[MattKing]

New digital cameras have largely been a new physical product

I would quibble about this.
Most of the value in a digital camera comes from its signal processing capabilities - there is way more money spent on developing the firmware and software in there than the hardware.
For that reason, the possibility of adding new or improved features later is very real.
If you have to build into the initial purchase cost the costs of developing those new and improved features, that makes the initial cost higher than necessary.
It probably all turns on how modular items are. If they are designed so that features can easily be added - sort of like adding plug in memory or optionally purchasing updated downloadable firmware with additional features - then an a la carte approach may make sense.
As the incredibly irritating insurance ads say "pay only for what you need".

 

[koraks]

Small niggle, but this isn't micro transactions. At least the BMW example. It's a straight up subscription fee.

The management lingo for this is 'servitization'. It's being explored in just about any industry. A little over a decade ago, we got stories of Philips Lighting renting out a certain degree of illumination for a certain space or object, instead of selling lighting fixtures, bulbs, replacements and services.

That allowed users to decide what functionality they needed, and to pay for what they needed.

Yeah. That's the optimist's angle on this.
The realist in me knows perfectly well though that this is driven not from such lofty motives, but mostly from a viewpoint of maximizing revenue streams and shareholder value.

In fact, it's more expensive for the consumer because the connectivity has to be built in just so BMW can disable your shit.

Certainly so, and from a sustainability viewpoint, I think it's a horrible practice and hence won't stand the test of time. Companies doing this will be fried for it at some point.
But, on the other hand: if you know about mass customization and the sheer number of variants you could get on your let's say typical 5-series, the logic behind trying to simplify this landscape and thereby making operations more resilient also makes sense. If you only have one variant to sell for a particular model, this will make the supply chain far more flexible in the end, since the customer order decoupling point will shift - and indeed, some products may not be customer specific anymore to begin with, while they are now. So at a theoretical level, there's some more sense to this than meets the eye.

This is even more so the case when it comes to software-only features. The trend of replacing hardware complexity with software functionality is a long-standing one in the automotive industry. I always like the example of windscreen defogging: some cars in the past would use a heater wire embedded inside the windscreen for this (e.g. 1990s Ford Mondeo types), while the common solution for this today is simply a (software) configuration that turns up interior heating, aircon, turns the fan on full force and directs the air at the wind screen. This uses hardware that's already present in the car anyway; the specific function (windscreen defrosting) is realized purely through software, and hence at virtually zero marginal cost.

Take a seat in a modern car and count the features that are realized only by software running on a relatively limited number of hardware modules. This explodes if you consider in-car entertainment and navigation aids etc. - i.e. everything that's basically 'an app' anyway. All these features are very attractive to rent out as a service given their zero marginal production cost. The examples @VinceMT gave concerning cameras mostly fit neatly in this category.

But the question in the end is who will benefit from this, and also how the customer/consumer in the end feels like it. Even if there are good arguments (even from the customer's viewpoint), not everyone will accept this kind of deal - and that's true for private individuals and businesses alike.

Personally, I guess I'm old-fashioned and like the product to be what I buy for a one-time purchase price. I don't rent Photoshop because despite its best-in-class functionality, it just doesn't add up for an incidental home-user like myself. If cameras in the future are going to follow the same route, I'm out. Fortunately, nobody's going to pull any stoopid servitization on my old and (t)rusty Toyo Field camera!

 

[Moose22]

I would quibble about this.
Most of the value in a digital camera comes from its signal processing capabilities - there is way more money spent on developing the firmware and software in there than the hardware.

Yes.

But this is not just software. It's software in conjunction with new hardware. For example, the Z7ii has dual expeed 6 processors vs the Z7's single expeed 6 processor. You can't get the bigger buffer, higher framerate, and better low light performance without the hardware upgrade.

As for the other bits of it, yes, the initial cost is higher because of this. But look at the business model Nikon pursues from the other side of the fence.

Pretend there's a Nikon fanboy named Earl E. Adopter. He gets z10 the day it comes out wanting the latest and greatest. A year later, the new Z10 is cheaper than it was on release day, and since it has new firmware it is more capable than Earl's, has fewer bugs. Old Earl is going to be pissed if he has to pay a subscription service to bring the camera up to date when the higher serial number version is physically identical. Or, to Nikon's chagrin, Mr. Adopter will wait a year instead of upgrading now, figuring it's not worth dealing with the bugs and paying for the privilege, just run the old camera a year or two longer and buy the previous flagship after the firmware's up to snuff.

Companies like Nikon count on firmware updates because it allows them to get a body out now, even if the firmware isn't perfect (and, with Nikon, god help us, it never is) knowing they can improve it over the life of the product.

Similarly, those free updates also include lens compatibility. Which means without them, the latest additions to the new lens lineup might not perform well on an early version of the camera. Nikon sure wants us buying more glass, and mirrorless are only so perfect because of the built in distortion modeling firmware.

I'm guessing this is why it hasn't happened yet. Nikon's pretty stodgy, but most of the camera companies are conservative in their business models. They have not had a notion of plug in beyond lenses and SD cards that haven't been like slightly electronic versions of their old fashioned accessories. GPS unit or wifi as a wacky dongle that they charge an awful lot of money for.

What I'm really not seeing, is how a subscription service would be of benefit for a la carte features. If the physical nature of the camera doesn't change, someone still has to pay for the hardware AND the software to make a working product. You're not adding anything, you're simply disabling what's already there to extort a fee from the customer. So, will the reduction in cost if someone is willing to accept lower resolution, or not be able to record 4K video, be seen as a savings by the users? Or will the users who expect a fully featured camera be pissed that their camera requires a payment plan and jump ship to one of the other manufacturers who make similarly awesome cameras?

If you add more memory, I pay for that new memory, then I have to pay a monthly fee to use it? Not gonna do it. No way, no how.

From a company perspective, It's a tough balance. I'd have to see real numbers on manufacturing costs and real projections to know if it would work, but for a high end device like a digicam, there's just no way in hell I'd purchase it having to pay monthly just to use features. And I'd never buy a newly made camera if I had to pay for firmware updates, that'd just be stupid.

It's never just pay for what you use. Subscriptions are specifically designed to make you pay, even if you never use it. You'll still be on the hook every month even when the camera is on the shelf the whole month and never used at all. If NLP worked with ANY other software, there's no way in hell I'd use Adobe for anything. Same reason, some months I have it open weekly, some months I never develop a roll and don't use it at all, but I still have to pay.

 

[Moose22]

Take a seat in a modern car and count the features that are realized only by software running on a relatively limited number of hardware modules. This explodes if you consider in-car entertainment and navigation aids etc. - i.e. everything that's basically 'an app' anyway. !

My career for the first 15 years of the 21st century was automotive navigation. I know about this.

Seats aren't the same. There's no possible way the fully featured heated seats are less expensive because you don't have the logistical problems of non heated seats. I'd buy that argument if they came in one fabric, one color, one feature set for adjustability, and one size for all of their cars, but BMW has a very wide selection of all of those things, individualized for all their models, just as all other manufacturers.

This was some bean counter with a bright idea trying to jump on a bandwagon and doing it badly. The addition of a single sensor and relay per seat to the processing load is negligible. It's way harder to check connectivity, check authorization, then allow the function to work than to just... flip the relay if your butt is cold.

Pay for play shouldn't be anything funamental. Maybe... Connectivity? I can see that being a feature you pay for so you can get real time traffic, map searches, internet radio, or whatever. If you can provide something better than what you get by just plugging in your phone at least. But just because it is software instead of steam gauges, where's the limit? Just because an app runs your speedo doesn't mean you expect to pay monthly to know how fast you're going.

Same with a camera. I'm genuinely waiting for anyone to come up with a compelling feature that I would pay monthly to use on my digicam. But I can't imagine it. The notion that my camera could be bricked because I didn't connect it to the internets and let Nikon authorize me to use it that day is a huge deal killer. I want less connectivity, not more. If I have to connect, I might as well just use my phone.

And what happens when they cease support of older products? Tough shit, your four year old camera no longer works because we don't want to run the authorization server any longer? For cripes' sake, I just took a photo with a 70 year old camera. Even in the digital age I expect things to keep working for a decade, so how long would a camera company really want to keep up the support?

 

[koraks]

I agree with you that it's overall an abominable idea.

 

[VinceInMT]

Small niggle, but this isn't micro transactions. At least the BMW example. It's a straight up subscription fee. Microtransactions would be very small payments on a per use basis, like if I subscribe to a weather service and pay a fraction of a penny each time I poll the API to pull data, that'd be microtransactions.

OK, but the term was used on several articles I’ve read about the move such as :

“BMW starts selling heated seat subscriptions for $18 a month: The auto industry is racing towards a future full of microtransactions”​

https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscriptions-microtransactions-heated-seats-feature

Maybe the $18/month for a heated seat does count as a “very small payment” when conspidering the cost of the vehicle.

Maybe BMW needs to include a line in their ads like many apps in the app store: “In App Purchases”

As for the BMW example, I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever purchase that car just on principle.

Not a new one buy I’ve had my eye out for a BMW 2002 for a while but all the sudden they good “discovered” and the prices have skyrockets. I guess I’ll stick to my Volvos and Triumphs.

It was a case of the consumer both paying for the hardware and then having to pay more for permission to use it.

Yes, that was the issue I had and mentioned above. The customer is paying for hardware they don’t want.

On a photographic note, I think I remember people talking about hacking their Canon Rebels to unlock features since Canon had installed the same/similar electronics as in a more expensive series. It’s been a while so my memory if foggy on that.

 

[koraks]

I think I remember people talking about hacking their Canon Rebels to unlock features since Canon had installed the same/similar electronics as in a more expensive series

There's a very famous example of a laser printer model some 30 years ago, where a very simple hack would unlock performance of a far more expensive model. I forgot the brand; I think it wasn't HP. This was one of the first time at least to my memory when this sort of thing popped up. It's been a recurring phenomenon ever since, but usually these 'upgrades' weren't intended to be performed in the field at all. They were mostly an artefact of trying to reduce engineering and manufacturing complexity (the laser printer example) or sometimes to sell technically identical lower-grade components that didn't meet the Q&A tests of the higher-performing ones (some computer CPU's - although this has never been as common as people sometimes believe).

 

[KerrKid]

And what happens when they cease support of older products? Tough shit, your four year old camera no longer works because we don't want to run the authorization server any longer?

This is a huge problem and I believe governments have responded by requiring certain companies to provide parts and support for a certain amount of years. Of course, that's still planned obsolescence (which is another hideous concept based on greed).

Basically you own your car, motorcycle, camera, phone, computer, etc. but you do not own the rights to what makes it work. When that ECM, firmware, software, or what-have-you no longer works, neither does your product. I ride a motorcycle in that category. You cannot get ECM's any longer for the early model years of that bike anymore and ECM's for my model are becoming scarce as hen's teeth. Plus they are very expensive. We are all driving/riding future lawn ornaments.

I think we can see some of these things in the camera world. Planned obsolescence, for sure.

And there's a major environmental cost to all this. How many otherwise perfectly good things are in the landfills due to some microchip that no longer works? Or because a manufacturer wanted to make sure what they sold you breaks so you'll have to buy another one?

As a related side note: Do you realize if you authorize someone to put something into your body that alters your DNA - your operating system - that you no longer own the way you operate? The new DNA sequence is owned, and you are now controlled, by the company that patented it just like every other GMO and you have agreed to the Terms and Conditions. Consider the implications.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When the Apple II came out, Integer Basic and Floating Point Basic were in the ROM [leading '0' address bit for the first and leading '1' address bit for the second] but to get to Floating Point Basic one had to buy the disk. So the users where paying for something that they already had!

 

[koraks]

Planned obsolescence, for sure.

By far not all product life cycle or service life limitations stem from a combination of opportunistic behavior and customer lock-in. There are all too often perfectly understandable technical and organizational reasons why it's difficult (and/or hellishly expensive) or even impossible to make a product last longer than it does, especially in the face of fierce competition and rapidly shifting complementary technologies.

This is not to say that planned obsolescence doesn't exist. It's just one of those things that turns out to be more rare than some people want or choose to believe. One of the main issues with this concept is that the debate on it is fraught with conspiracy thinking that makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction.

 

[Chan Tran]

It all depends on the consumers. If the consumers accept it then it will be otherwise it won't.

 

[MattKing]

I wouldn't be surprised if it is cheaper and more efficient for BMW (and its dealers) to include the heated seat mechanisms in every seat than it would be to have two different production schedules, and two different pools of inventory - one with heated seats installed, and the other with non-heated.
If the potential to have heated seats available is in each car, customers in colder climates can elect to pay for them, while customers in warmer climates can elect not to. And customers who travel into other climates can also respond appropriately. In addition, used cars may be more easily marketed in other parts of the country.
There may even be the potential to buy limited duration subscriptions - pay for your heated seats in the winter, and don't pay for them the rest of the year.
Heated seats may also be the sort of feature that is always "bundled" with other features. For example, the only way to get leather seats, is to get them as part of the package that includes heated seats. The subscription model lets you effectively unbundle such pairings.
All arguments for a subscription model for that particular feature.

 

[VinceInMT]

I am sure that bean counters have provided information to designers and manufacturers that could be seen as "planned obsolesce" but rather than see that as some kind of nefarious conspiracy, I just see that as a normal way products are made, particularly when a warranty is provided with the purchase. The sales and marketing departments want to sell a warranty as part of the package and someone asks the question "How long should the warranty be for" and someone else asks "well, how long do we expect the thing to last." Engineers perform as sorts of tests to answer that question and we get products that last more or less that long without issues. In reality, does anyone expect any product to last forever?

Once a product goes out of support by the maker, there is an opportunity for a secondary market to provide parts and/or support. One of my cars is a '65 Triumph TR4, made by a company that no longer exists, however, there is a strong secondary market for parts due to demand. As long as I still have the frame, I can mostly build a new car from the part catalog from Moss Motors.

If there is sufficient demand, someone will likely figure out a way to make a buck on that. Just look at what the world of 3-D printing has done in that realm. I have a 40-year old electric pencil sharpener in my studio that gave it up a few years ago. I looked at doing a direct replacement but, being who I am, I disassembled it and found that a plastic gear and split in two, probably from age. The company who made it is long gone so I figured getting a part was not going to happen but found a guy on eBay who 3D prints the part. For $8 I had the replacement and the sharpener works like new. Now THAT is a pretty niche market but someone figured out has to make a buck at it.

 

[koraks]

For $8 I had the replacement and the sharpener works like new.

It's rewarding to fix something like that, isn't it? I always give it a go as well before giving up on a product.

 

[VinceInMT]

It's rewarding to fix something like that, isn't it? I always give it a go as well before giving up on a product.

Yes. A month ago my garage door opener quit. It came with my house which I bought 31 years ago. Friends said “It’s just time to replace it“ but I got on a ladder, took the cover off, and probed around. The motor wasn’t frozen, the start capacitor didn’t appear to be burned or leaking, and nothing else seemed obvious. I thought I’d take a chance that it was burned contacts on the relay and dug in to lightly file them when I found one of the spade connectors going from it to the motor had spit and came off the terminal. I cut it off the wire and installed a new one that I happened to have in my toolbox and it’s been working fine since. Maybe it’ll go another 30-some years.

 

[4season]

Paying to unlock features in cameras is already a reality with the Panasonic DC-S5 II, where raw video output can be added for an additional $200. Dunno that I see any particular appeal to this approach, but at least it’s a one-time charge.

IMO, pay-as-you-go might make more sense when it involves services which undergo regular and meaningful updates.

 

[xkaes]

As mentioned above, this PAY-FOR-FEATURES has been going on in cameras for quite a while -- with add-on accessories, firmware, etc. But the photographic industry has been doing this all along in a more obvious way. They come out with a new camera or lens with the new feature(s) -- and if you want it, you buy the NEW model. Perfect examples are auto-diaphragms, TTL metering, auto-exposure, auto-focusing, TTL FLASH, etc. These are not add-on, pay-for features for your gear. You buy the whole new package -- and PAY-FOR-THE-FEATURES.

And much like cell phones, computers and cars -- and even spouses -- plenty of people get rid of their old cameras & lenses and buy new gear every couple of years. That's "The American Way" -- in case you haven't heard.

 

[KerrKid]

By far not all product life cycle or service life limitations stem from a combination of opportunistic behavior and customer lock-in. There are all too often perfectly understandable technical and organizational reasons why it's difficult (and/or hellishly expensive) or even impossible to make a product last longer than it does, especially in the face of fierce competition and rapidly shifting complementary technologies.

This is not to say that planned obsolescence doesn't exist. It's just one of those things that turns out to be more rare than some people want or choose to believe. One of the main issues with this concept is that the debate on it is fraught with conspiracy thinking that makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction.

These are just my humble opinions coming from years in sales, marketing and advertising and being responsible for increasing revenue or else. My biases are coming from that perspective and experience.

I have not ever sat around a boardroom and listened to people talk about how to make something last a long time unless the topic was their profitability.

As I said, that's my experience and yours sounds different. It obviously depends on what industries you've been involved with. I have not spent much time with clients involved in durable goods like firearms, for instance. Most of my clients have been involved in pursuits where profitability is gained only by things going "wrong" and needing repair, correction, healing, replacement, updates, consumables, etc. When you're around people who want/need things to go "wrong" in order to make money, it is not hard to come in contact with people who want them to. I'm not implying that many people make sure they do, but I also wouldn't say it's rare. In my experience.

Now, as you said, there are many factors beyond corporate greed that come into play, and you are correct. I understand that many decisions are driven by consumer demand for cheaper and cheaper products that do more and more. In a disposable society that wants instant gratification and something new every day, there is no wisdom in producing something that's extremely durable and has to cost more than something that isn't. Especially now since consumers are accustomed to having things not last and accept that as normal.

But my goodness, have you ever owned a Jeep? Just Exchange Every Part. That right there is the poster child for planned obsolescence. How about a Chevrolet HHR and the door handles that break? They all do. How about the door handle on my Nissan Rogue that just cracked in half? Gad. Planned Obsolescence is rampant in the new vehicle industry and don't tell me those companies are shocked by the failures. They're producing junk that they know will break so eventually you'll get tired of paying for repairs and you'll buy a new car or truck.

As long as most of us make a living because things need correcting, repair, replacement, etc. there will always be someone more than willing to make sure it does. And I think lots of "someones".

Yes, I'm cynical.))

 

[Sirius Glass]

These are just my humble opinions coming from years in sales, marketing and advertising and being responsible for increasing revenue or else. My biases are coming from that perspective and experience.

I have not ever sat around a boardroom and listened to people talk about how to make something last a long time unless the topic was their profitability.

As I said, that's my experience and yours sounds different. It obviously depends on what industries you've been involved with. I have not spent much time with clients involved in durable goods like firearms, for instance. Most of my clients have been involved in pursuits where profitability is gained only by things going "wrong" and needing repair, correction, healing, replacement, updates, consumables, etc. When you're around people who want/need things to go "wrong" in order to make money, it is not hard to come in contact with people who want them to. I'm not implying that many people make sure they do, but I also wouldn't say it's rare. In my experience.

Now, as you said, there are many factors beyond corporate greed that come into play, and you are correct. I understand that many decisions are driven by consumer demand for cheaper and cheaper products that do more and more. In a disposable society that wants instant gratification and something new every day, there is no wisdom in producing something that's extremely durable and has to cost more than something that isn't. Especially now since consumers are accustomed to having things not last and accept that as normal.

But my goodness, have you ever owned a Jeep? Just Exchange Every Part. That right there is the poster child for planned obsolescence. How about a Chevrolet HHR and the door handles that break? They all do. How about the door handle on my Nissan Rogue that just cracked in half? Gad. Planned Obsolescence is rampant in the new vehicle industry and don't tell me those companies are shocked by the failures. They're producing junk that they know will break so eventually you'll get tired of paying for repairs and you'll buy a new car or truck.

As long as most of us make a living because things need correcting, repair, replacement, etc. there will always be someone more than willing to make sure it does. And I think lots of "someones".

Yes, I'm cynical.))

Correction: But my goodness, have you ever owned a Jeep? Just Empty Every Pocket