132
Wow I had no idea the subscription was that much. He mentioned it in a video without saying the price and I still wouldn't do it.
Homie spreads apple propaganda like aids, he's an awful tech influencer
He is quite harsh on Apple for someone who gets exclusive access. In this video he is talking about how nothing has changed, barely considered an update and that the new things dont even come with the phone.
Wallpapers on phone are useless because apps are always full screen.
Who would pay for such thing?
No sane individual is going to pay for a subscription for phone backgrounds.
That is absolutely a stupid business idea and the people who came up with it should be publicly shamed.
I've not looked into it, but it's probably pitched as a feel-good way of supporting artists.
You think it's new? It's have already done by so many people in Android community. Like Widepaper, Wallfever, Wallbyte etc. These all apps are paid. People actually pay for Wallpapers.
I think buying an app for a couple of quid that has a good curated collection of wallpapers, a nice UX, etc. is a completely fair price to pay for the convenience. I like supporting devs. I fail to see the stupidity.
A $12 monthly subscription is an entirely different beast, though.
Or even a market that let you just buy individual wallpapers as you want them, like how you used to be able to buy individual tracks in itunes instead of a whole album.
A subscription model is a bit silly.
Remember when people paid for ringtones? Doesn't mean it isn't stupid, especially as a subscription, but people do stupid things and other people take advantage.
There are infinite list of things and services that are way too expensive for me to even consider buying but I also don't go around complaining about them. Move on guys.. If you want free wallpapers you can try one of the other 9000 free wallpaper apps available. This is recreational outrage.
50/50 cut is borderline predatory. It should be 30/70. It feels like marques is so out of touch with common people.
30% is still predatory imo. Especially for a glorified marketplace with an image delivery system.
He is fronting money for development. Which is not cheap.
Once dev cost stabilizes, I would love to have a better split for artists.
Who would pay for this?
Marques has a decent chunk of his fan base that's...kinda rich? That's the only thing that can explain why he reviews supercars and expects people to use their phone without a case. So if he's directing some of that fan base's money toward artists, I'm all for it, assuming the profit sharing is reasonable (and I have no reason to believe it's not).
I mean, I'm not going to pay that sort of money on a wallpaper (I almost always use photos of family or friends anyway). But if the people who buy it like it, and the people who sell art for it are treated well, you go MKBHD.
Im not rich and I use my phone without a case and watch some of those reviews.
The app is a bad idea with a bad deal for artists.
Im not rich and I use my phone without a case
I guess you could also have fairly sticky hands.
and watch some of those reviews.
Yeah, sometimes I do too, if only for the novelty of it. But they're certainly not for us.
The app is a bad idea with a bad deal for artists.
Citation needed. Do you have any data on the app's profit share structure? Because at the price they're charging, if they're passing on a decent share of it to the artists, it sounds like it's not a bad gig.
Fifty fifty is what MKB said was the split, which is a predatory figure. Apple charges less and people are up in arms about their predatory practices.
I dont know what the sticky hands comment means.
I feel this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but if you want unique wallpapers, consider paying an actual artist, instead of an influencer
If I want a unique wallpaper I go on a walk in the great outdoors and take a picture
most unique things outdoors are photographed already
I don't think that's going to be an unpopular opinion around here. Maybe a little tricky in the logistics of distinguishing between an artist and influencer and finding an artist who you like and can pay for a phone background, but other than that you're not going to find many Lemmings saying "no, pay an influencer!"
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Avoid sites like Fiver, though. Lots of AI bullshit pretending to be real art.
Even before the flood of AI bullshit Fiverr really, really sucked for the human artists, creatives, coders, and other freelancers employed through the platform.
I made a Fiverr account once for my art services. I deleted it within an hour of creation after reading how much money they would steal from my commissions.
Apparently one of the wallpapers is just solid orange. It's called "Orange", is labeled as "abstract", and is labeled with a copyright.
It's a solid orange rectangle.
$50 a year for wallpapers or I could go to wallhaven and get millions for free?
The "shares its profits with the artists" part is relevant here.
Did he disclose an amount?
5% to artists is very different than 40% to artists.
Or is he adopting the Spotify bottom line?
Only pay artists after X downloads and only pay a few cents after thousands of downloads and use the rest for profits
It's 50%, which is honestly quite low
It would almost be cheaper to commission an artist frankly.
Almost is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Nah it'd be cheaper to commission the artist for a dozen or so pictures for 45 bucks:
First you need to blow some ungodly amount of money on breaking the time/space barrier.... Then travel back to the 1920s and find a starving artist. Then pitch him 45 bucks for some art. Easy! 45 bucks to them is like 800 of our today dollars.
Sarcasm aside- it seems people really are disconnected on how much a commission or art costs. Sure you can buy prints reasonably priced but any commission that isn't a speedy doodle is going to clock in a helluva lot higher.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
It costs $49.99 per year (or $11.99 per month)
Why in the hell does the monthly price end with you paying 280% more than the yearly. That is such an absurd discount I don't even know why someone would pay at all for this app but more so I want to understand where the price justification is and who came up with this plan.
To be clear I support artists and more than welcome a platform for them to share and sell art if they wish... I don't get why it needs to be a subscription service and I don't see how such inflated charges are going to help artists as it'll just discourage large numbers of people wanting to support them.
Probably because you can pay for a month and download all the wallpapers and cancel.
Short version: there’s an $80 bread maker with 5 features, a $120 bread maker with 12 features, and a $475 bread maker with 14 features.
The $475 bread maker only exists to make the $120 version look like a bargain.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I started to get worked up but then i remembered I don't particularly care. He's in it to make bank, not necessarily sell you a quality product. If he were, he wouldn't be selling a wallpaper app.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
132 points (90.2% liked)
Technology
58227 readers
3936 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS