bad design as default

I can’t tell you how much I hate hidden costs. When I’ve gotten all the way past the point of purchase and discover that I’ve only managed to bribe my foot into the door. Drives me up the wall. Buy your first car, part with your hard earned dough, get smacked in the face with the immediate reality that the lump of metal you now own is effectively inoperable without heaps more fees like insurance and tax.

[//] # “NOTE: fix this para.”
I’m sure we can all agree that it’s a frustrating and all too common paradigm in life. So why is it the basis for almost all of the digital products we use? When did this ugly principle become standard practice?

freeware

Use the free version, then pay to play.

noble intentions

Devs want people onto their product, but they also want to get money. Some want Tim apple money, some want riches, some want coffee subs.

ergonomic suffering

The drawback is that the user ends up getting a worse quality experience as default, and the percieved value of software as a tool goes down in people’s estimation.

death of a thousand cuts

Of course what you end up with in the current system is an awful thing. Some kind of wringing dry of your finances. The average person of course not having nearly the expendable income of your average software developer, therefore having to pick and choose which apps to shell out monthly for, which to suffer along with.

good vs bad examples

To get what I mean you might need some examples:

- GOOD: anki ios app [pay once, get the full app, never pay
    again.]
- GOOD: iphone [buy an iphone, get updated software every year
    for free for the usable life of the phone. *iffy* because
    it's walled garden and they're expensive]
- BAD: myfitnesspal [put barcode scanner behind paywall, core
    functionality. once userbase was built too! harsh]
- BAD: every newspaper ever [articles behind paywall? when
    services and sites can aggregate your headlines why would
    you only want readers there for that and a first para?]