Whoa if true.

  • SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why sell something once if they can sell it to you every month whether you use it or not?

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Subscriptions are out of control these days. You can even get subscription running shoes lol

      • Nath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d actually consider that. It’d depend on the shoes and the price. At present, I’m running about 1,500km a year. My shoes are $260 (unless I can find them on sale) and I get around 1,000km out of each pair. That works out at around $10-15 per week on shoes.

        I doubt whoever is renting shoes out is charging that much for the service.

          • Nath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s probably too much. Even though it’s roughly what I’m paying now. While the subscription commitment would encourage me to make sure I was running to get value for it, the risk of not owning my shoes and the service being timely with replacements wouldn’t offset the stability I have now of just owning my shoes.

            In short, I can’t see who this would be better for.

            • Ilandar@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They have a sustainability angle, which I guess is what would drive most to subscribe. The company would probably argue they need a subscription model to ensure people return the shoes regularly so they can recycle them, but it would be good if they could find a way to do this without removing the consumer’s right to ownership.