Reefbreeder Paywall Feature good or bad?

[VintageReefer]

This is a bold statement that places value on categories that may not matter to some users. Like how you see acclimation.

Actually, I think it's true. I would be hard-pressed to find a light with such fragmented hardware, the volume of nickel-and-dimed cost adders, the inclusion of pay-to-play software features, and how strenuously the loyal users defend their purchase/acquisition. It'll grow coral. That's for sure, but given the above, I think @VintageReefer is spot on.

Your response is smug, but you are taking my words out of context. The photon was an evergrow fixture with a few changes and then rebranded as reefbreeders. The meridian is not. It is a 100% original design and not a clone/rebrand of anything else

 

[TelegrahamTested LLC]

They likely are using Stripe or some other platform (pay another fee to use) as all that is built-in. So they likely are paying for it via subscriptions vs capital investment up front.

This is a reasonable position. Thank you. I'll change the text.

 

[TelegrahamTested LLC]

Your response is smug, but you are taking my words out of context. The photon was an evergrow fixture with a few changes and then rebranded as reefbreeders. The meridian is not. It is a 100% original design and not a clone/rebrand of anything else

Totally smug, and I think you underestimate my use of categories. A light that's 100% from the ground up didn't need to mimic basic controls, a pre-existing spectrum, or use the mid-20teens tight spread, whether intentionally or not. Maybe my "Chinese chat app" led me astray?

And, yes, I know. The lenses are replaceable, but that's part of the nickel-and-dime thing. I guess available bars help with that, eh?

 

[VintageReefer]

Totally smug, and I think you underestimate my use of categories. A light that's 100% from the ground up didn't need to mimic basic controls, a pre-existing spectrum, or use the mid-20teens tight spread, whether intentionally or not. Maybe my "Chinese chat app" led me astray?

It’s twisting my words out of context. my statement is fact. You’re looking into something beyond what I said and meant.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Then how do other companies do it successfully? perplexing

Do what successfully? I am not sure what is perplexing about what I said.

They appear to be looking for a recurring revenue stream because adding $20 (or whatever subsidized cost mentioned) per fixture doesn't get them what they want or need at the low volume of sales that this hobby drives.

Selling durable goods in a very saturated small market is not a money maker, it is a recipe for bankruptcy. Subscription based services both secure recurring revenue and add a predictable accounting structure.

SaaS for durable goods without a subscription is a forever profit eraser. Each unit sold sucks more bandwidth and resources, the longer the user remains a customer, the more money they lose on them. The math isn't complicated.

I don't care what anybody else does, I don't need or want SaaS for my aquarium and will not pay a subscription fee for any "soft locked" feature. I will not buy or use hardware that requires cloud activation or check-in. People are free to do as they wish, but I will not spend money with vendors who move toward or utilize that model.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The question isn’t “how can a company their size do it?” The question is why they chose to recover that cost in a way that creates friction and resentment with existing customers instead of just baking it into the product price going forward.

I think this is where the disconnect is. Baking the cost in and a subscription serve two different purposes.

There are too many durable tech products in this tiny space. There is tremendous unfair price pressure from overseas. Selling durable hardware without a recurring revenue stream is a death sentence for most companies. If you are not selling consumables, then subscription based services are another option. The customer base either accepts or they don't. The herd is going to thin in this space one way or another.

You make the call, ham fisted and tine deaf money grab, or desperate attempt to stay profitable?

 

[TelegrahamTested LLC]

Spectrum charts represent capability of a light but keep in mind that the chart is only for all channels equally at 100% and many people are not running that over their tank. It is up to us to set our lights correctly for a balance between corals requirements and our viewing preferences.

I'd like to clarify this statement. Spectrographs can be whatever you want. All at 100%, individual channels like what I shot with the Meridian, preconfigs like AB+, or whatever. All at 100% is the absolute best a light can do, and that's how I compare spectra from different manufacturers.

Regarding your second point, I generally agree. "Correctly" is an interesting word to use, but if a user pins the blues, then brings up others to make the tank look nice to them, then adjusts the intensity for PAR goals, they'll be good to go.

And did I understand correctly that after our conversation on the subject, the Meridian gained a master intensity slider or did I dream that?

 

[VintageReefer]

I'd like to clarify this statement. Spectrographs can be whatever you want. All at 100%, individual channels like what I shot with the Meridian, preconfigs like AB+, or whatever. All at 100% is the absolute best a light can do, and that's how I compare spectra from different manufacturers.

Correct.

Regarding your second point, I generally agree. "Correctly" is an interesting word to use, but if a user pins the blues, then brings up others to make the tank look nice to them, then adjusts the intensity for PAR goals, they'll be good to go.

That’s how I would suggest to program LEDs as well

And did I understand correctly that after our conversation on the subject, the Meridian gained a master intensity slider or did I dream that?

You are correct but it was already in development before we talked. At one point it was being considered as an item to include in premium but when it was ready they decided to include it for all users at no charge

 

[areefer01]

You are correct but it was already in development before we talked. At one point it was being considered as an item to include in premium but when it was ready they decided to include it for all users at no charge

Paywall intensity slider, that is rich. Sort of like Ford requiring a subscription for the gas pedal...

 

[TelegrahamTested LLC]

You are correct but it was already in development before we talked. At one point it was being considered as an item to include in premium but when it was ready they decided to include it for all users at no charge

That would have been a ridiculous add-on to premium. You're kidding, right?

 

[exnisstech]

At one point it was being considered as an item to include in premium but when it was ready they decided to include it for all users at no charge

I for one am glad they didn't charge for an intensity slider. Pegging the blues and adjusting the others to my liking then using the intensity slider to set to par levels is exactly what I'm doing now.
Silly me thought I could just mount the new 45 and load the same schedule as I run on my 11 and get that same look but that isn't happening

 

[Biff0rz]

Do what successfully? I am not sure what is perplexing about what I said.

They appear to be looking for a recurring revenue stream because adding $20 (or whatever subsidized cost mentioned) per fixture doesn't get them what they want or need at the low volume of sales that this hobby drives.

Selling durable goods in a very saturated small market is not a money maker, it is a recipe for bankruptcy. Subscription based services both secure recurring revenue and add a predictable accounting structure.

SaaS for durable goods without a subscription is a forever profit eraser. Each unit sold sucks more bandwidth and resources, the longer the user remains a customer, the more money they lose on them. The math isn't complicated.

I don't care what anybody else does, I don't need or want SaaS for my aquarium and will not pay a subscription fee for any "soft locked" feature. I will not buy or use hardware that requires cloud activation or check-in. People are free to do as they wish, but I will not spend money with vendors who move toward or utilize that model.

I think this is where the disconnect is. Baking the cost in and a subscription serve two different purposes.

There are too many durable tech products in this tiny space. There is tremendous unfair price pressure from overseas. Selling durable hardware without a recurring revenue stream is a death sentence for most companies. If you are not selling consumables, then subscription based services are another option. The customer base either accepts or they don't. The herd is going to thin in this space one way or another.

You make the call, ham fisted and tine deaf money grab, or desperate attempt to stay profitable?

I don’t think anyone is confused that software costs money. I work in software. I’m very aware that it costs money.

The issue is not “how dare they charge for software.” The issue is what they chose to charge for, how they packaged it, and how it lands with the customer base.

If ReefBreeders came out with a genuinely optional cloud service that provided ongoing value, I doubt the reaction would be this strong. But when core light-control features start looking like they’re being carved out and monetized separately, people are going to call that what it feels like: nickel-and-diming.

And I don’t accept the framing that the only options are subscription or death. Raise the fixture price. Create a higher-end SKU. Charge once for a true Pro app. Sell better mounting systems. Sell diffusers. Sell accessories. Sell actual added value.

But don’t tell loyal customers who bought into the brand because it was the high-value alternative that the new strategy is now paid software unlocks.

Maybe it’s a desperate attempt to stay profitable. Maybe it’s a tone-deaf money grab. From the outside, those look a lot more similar than ReefBreeders probably wants to admit.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I don’t think anyone is confused that software costs money. I work in software. I’m very aware that it costs money. The issue is not “how dare they charge for software.” The issue is what they chose to charge for, how they packaged it, and how it lands with the customer base.

You keep reframing what I said. I am not sure you even read it. Who are you responding to? I am not defending them or think people are confused. I didn’t frame this as cost of writing software. It is about the cost of being a manufacturer with no recurring revenue and one time sales to a small number of customers in a saturated market.

And I don’t accept the framing that the only options are subscription or death. Raise the fixture price. Create a higher-end SKU. Charge once for a true Pro app. Sell better mounting systems. Sell diffusers. Sell accessories. Sell actual added value.

I think you are missing the forrest for the trees. They are not on an island here. None of those value-add upsells bridge the gap in a market like this.

Maybe it’s a desperate attempt to stay profitable. Maybe it’s a tone-deaf money grab. From the outside, those look a lot more similar than ReefBreeders probably wants to admit.

Already answered, my question was rhetorical. It doesn’t matter, they are in a bad spot either way. That was the point.

 

[Biff0rz]

You keep reframing what I said. I am not sure you even read it. Who are you responding to? I am not defending them or think people are confused. I didn’t frame this as cost of writing software. It is about the cost of being a manufacturer with no recurring revenue and one time sales to a small number of customers in a saturated market.


I think you are missing the forrest for the trees. They are not on an island here. None of those value-add upsells bridge the gap in a market like this.


Already answered, my question was rhetorical. It doesn’t matter, they are in a bad spot either way. That was the point.

I'm not reframing - I'm circling back to my oringal point - other companies do it just fine without having a subscription model. Facing all the same problems. And, given the feedback and voting results of this survey - it looks like they will have ZERO subscribers to this. So did they accomplish anything other than ticking off their current customers? NOPE.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I'm not reframing - I'm circling back to my oringal point - other companies do it just fine without having a subscription model. Facing all the same problems

Many established hard goods manufactures in this space have a larger established revenue footprint, and even they are struggling, many with consumables giving them a boost. RB relied on rebadged imports with little overhead. Their new venture is a different game. So "all the same problems" is not accurate and that was the point. They are trying to compete in a saturated market and price point and there simply can't be much margin.

Repeating again as it appears to be lost. This hobby is over saturated with durable goods vendors. You can't survive selling low margin hardware with infinite support and a free SaaS offering. it is a recipe for bankruptcy. I am too uninterested to show mathematical examples, but I have in other threads for other vendors who have predictably failed or had to drastically change their business model to survive.

. And, given the feedback and voting results of this survey - it looks like they will have ZERO subscribers to this. So did they accomplish anything other than ticking off their current customers? NOPE.

Zero subscribers is baseless... but one way or another you continue to mistake my position. I am not defending them by any stretch of the imagination. I am pointing out the likely reality that is driving the business decision. It remains to be seen what the fallout is. Ticking off their current customers is not their current worry, those customers already purchased the lights. They are durable goods. The prospective customer will decide if this is a mistake or not. Time will tell.

 

[luxdium]

The paywall discussion seems to overlook a fundamental question: who actually owns the fixture? If the ownership rests with the end user, then what's preventing them from hooking the app at runtime, bypassing its privilege checks, and enabling the "premium" features for themselves?

 

[areefer01]

The paywall discussion seems to overlook a fundamental question: who actually owns the fixture? If the ownership rests with the end user, then what's preventing them from hooking the app at runtime, bypassing its privilege checks, and enabling the "premium" features for themselves?

Because:

A - that is probably beyond most hobbyist skill set
B - could brick the device
C - enough ways to prevent this from happening

 

[BeanAnimal]

The paywall discussion seems to overlook a fundamental question: who actually owns the fixture? If the ownership rests with the end user, then what's preventing them from hooking the app at runtime, bypassing its privilege checks, and enabling the "premium" features for themselves?

From what I gather nothing on the "fixture" itself is locked. The APP creates the parameters and schedule and pushes it to the fixture. The Paywall unlocks APP features to enhance the schedule profile.

For example - The NooPsyche works in a similar fashion and their payload is not encrypted, just encoded. So my app simply builds schedules offline and pushes them to the fixture.

Does RB encrypt the schedule payload or comms protocol? No idea.

 

[Rocks reef]

I can't help but wonder if something besides the timing used to control the LEDs has been changes. I swear my new 45 has a bluish cast compared to my early 11. The tanks are in different rooms so I can't view them both at the same time. The meridian is over a tank next to one running a photon and i really prefer the photon. I haven't been able to get a nice crisp look like I have with the photon. Is be happy to get the 45 to mimic the 11 but even running the same schedule there looks like a blue cast to the water under the 45.

I don't known maybe it's because I haven't finished painting the wall. This is the difference between the meridian 44 and a photon 32 v2 pro. I just can't seem to get rid of that blue tint the water has. Coral colors look decent but the water looks blue to me. Maybe I'm crazy.
No filter used.

No, I completely understand. I had to turn the UV/Violet WAY down to get rid of it. I also run the Royal Blue less than the other channels as well. It is TOO blue! I thought the 14K Shallow Reef model would have more of a crisp white with hint of blue... NOPE. Sadly disappointed.
I do agree the old Photons look better.

 

[Rocks reef]

This is a bold statement that places value on categories that may not matter to some users. Like how you see acclimation.

Actually, I think it's true. I would be hard-pressed to find a light with such fragmented hardware, the volume of nickel-and-dimed cost adders, the inclusion of pay-to-play software features, and how strenuously the loyal users defend their purchase/acquisition. It'll grow coral. That's for sure, but given the above, I think @VintageReefer is spot on.

Putting it the way you broke it down, I do agree.
Albeit, there are better options out there.