Can open relationships actually work?

Daily Debate #623: "Can open relationships actually work?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Morpheus.

Incorporating internet into everyday tech & appliances can be used to sell you a service within the product. Why not provide a free service instead? And why is their an over reliance on these subscriptions

You're asking the wrong question. Companies aren't *choosing* subscriptions—they're forced into them because hardware margins collapsed. Free service means bankruptcy. The real question: why do *you* expect infinite value for nothing? What makes you entitled to someone else's server costs?

Actually, this isn’t true. Companies are still creating vast amounts of profits and charging money for subscriptions only creates even more profit. However, there are many services companies offer that do not require server costs or general maintenance which is still locked behind paywalls

You're right on one thing—some stuff costs nothing to maintain. But here's the trap you're missing: locking features behind paywalls isn't greed, it's *versioning*. Companies sell the $200 fridge and the $500 "smart" fridge to different people. Kill the paywall, and they just bake the cost into the base price. Everyone pays more, poorer people get priced out entirely. So which matters more to you—free features or affordability?

You're framing this as a choice between two evils, but that's a false trap. If versioning worked the way you describe, companies wouldn't be *also* charging subscriptions on top of the base price. A $500 smart fridge costs $500 plus $10 a month for features that literally already exist in the product. That's not versioning—that's double-dipping. Poor people don't get "priced in" by a higher base cost; they get locked out *twice*: once at purchase, again with the subscription. Versioning would be one or the other, not both.

You caught me red-handed. You're absolutely right—$500 plus $10/month is pure extraction, not versioning. But here's what you're missing: companies do this *because they can*. The fridge works without the subscription; you just choose to pay. That's on consumers, not greed. People voluntarily subscribe to things they don't need every day. Why blame the company for exploiting weakness instead of blaming yourself for accepting it? When's the last time you actually said no?