Subscription Models In Golf

[GolfSpy_APH]

Have they gone too far? Are some useful? Are they off-putting for you?

[Josh Parker]

Personally, I don't do any golf subscription models.  If I want/need something, it's easy enough to go purchase it rather than be on a recurring schedule.  

I know a ton of people like it for that exact reason and they work for many, just not me.  I'm still one of those that wants to see/touch/feel what I'm buying.  

[Off Map Oscar]

I would rather pay more upfront for something of value that I know I'll use than pay for a subscription.  

Arccos vs shotscope is a prime example. Both do essentially the same thing but Shot Scope wins hands down in my book. 

Shot scope cost. 250 for the v5

Arccos subscription for a year 156

The sensors cost 150 at costco with the first years subscription.  

3 year cost of ownership 300 bucks. 

With the shotscope I get a watch too and don't need to buy a link to avoid using it with my phone. If I did just want to use my phone. Shotsope is a one time 70 dollar fee. 

 

 

[mpatrickriley]

I have mixed thoughts.

On the one hand, I hate subscriptions. As a guy in my mid-40s, I remember actually buying software and owning a copy of it.

On the other, back in those days, you used to buy software and often whatever it was, bugs and all, is what it was going to be until the next version release, at which point you would need to buy it again (most often at an upgrade price).

The subscription model certainly makes more sense in the era of endlessly development and software that is constantly being iterated. To expect to have constantly updated software, especially adding new features, for a one-time payment—well, it's not surprising that that is now uncommon.

What I've appreciated are certain companies that offer a kind of hybrid: buy in, and you get this set of features that will always work. If you want to continue to get new added features and development, here is the fee. If you stop subscribing, you retain the features you've paid for.

[The TXBexar]

14 minutes ago, mpatrickriley said:

I have mixed thoughts.

On the one hand, I hate subscriptions. As a guy in my mid-40s, I remember actually buying software and owning a copy of it.

On the other, back in those days, you used to buy software and often whatever it was, bugs and all, is what it was going to be until the next version release, at which point you would need to buy it again (most often at an upgrade price).

The subscription model certainly makes more sense in the era of endlessly development and software that is constantly being iterated. To expect to have constantly updated software, especially adding new features, for a one-time payment—well, it's not surprising that that is now uncommon.

What I've appreciated are certain companies that offer a kind of hybrid: buy in, and you get this set of features that will always work. If you want to continue to get new added features and development, here is the fee. If you stop subscribing, you retain the features you've paid for.

Yeah I fully agree. 

I don't need a lot of constant updates if what I bought initially is good enough; It's the reason I still haven't bought a Blue Tees Player+ GPS Speaker. 

I don't want to have to continue to purchase a Yearly Subscription for access, but from what I've heard, it provides a lot of good info and access to to use so maybe it is worth the subscription. 

[Shrek74]

1 hour ago, mpatrickriley said:

On the one hand, I hate subscriptions. As a guy in my mid-40s, I remember actually buying software and owning a copy of it.

On the other, back in those days, you used to buy software and often whatever it was, bugs and all, is what it was going to be until the next version release, at which point you would need to buy it again (most often at an upgrade price).

 

What I've appreciated are certain companies that offer a kind of hybrid: buy in, and you get this set of features that will always work. If you want to continue to get new added features and development, here is the fee. If you stop subscribing, you retain the features you've paid for.

Ahh, the days of 15 3.5" floppy disks required to install MS Office on Windows 95. Those were the days (of hell).

I do agree that the hybrid option is a nice one that many have gone to. The issue I have with some of them are that they offer the very basic features for free, to the point where the item is pretty useless without the subscription. They can say they have a free version, but it's basically worthless. Some of the less expensive PLM's have gone this route (MLM, R10, etc). I'm probably going to give serious thought to selling my R10 and look at the SC4 for this exact reason as my free year runs out this winter.

I've held off switching from Shot Scope to Arccos for this very reason. I was able to get my sensors free, but the Link Pro is $225 and then the yearly subscription of over $150. That's just a lot of money to shell out up front and year after year. Shot Scope, although requiring me to have a second watch to wear when I golf, has a one-time buy in for it's gear, then it's all free from there. If Arccos did away with the subscription, I'd have switched a while ago. But they haven't, so I'm still the fence.

I understand the subscription model and why it exists. I also understand that most, if not all of the companies are overcharging for their subscriptions (and in some cases, REALLY overcharging). I work in IT and know the costs of running servers, storage, networking, and software development is for the most part, which is where they say the subscription generally goes, to cover those backend costs. We're being overcharged.

[ClevelandGirl]

If there’s a subscription, I immediately shy away from it, golf or no. I’d never have started with Shot Scope (and I had a V1, so been with them years).
 

I pay $30 a year for a Metroparks bonus round, which gives me 20% off fees at a bunch of excellent courses. But I easily recoup that $30 by late spring/early summer. But that’s about it for me for golf.