Poll: How Much Do You Spend on Digital, Online Subscriptions Each Month?

whirlpool_guy on 17/11/2017 - 10:42
Last edited 17/11/2017 - 19:07 by 1 other user

Hello OzBargainers,

Nowadays, many services that used to be part of the physical world became 100% digital, 100% web based - DVD rental became Netflix, newspapers became blogs and web sites, local town hall became Reddit, shrink-wrapped software packages became subscriptions.

Also, new services were created to keep our "digital lives" going - Files backup, VPN, …

Would be interesting to find out how much we, as individuals and families, are spending regularly on 100% digital contents and services. Please fill in the poll and discuss why you pay (or don't pay) for certain digital / online subscriptions.

Things to include when calculating your monthly spend:
Category Description Examples
Music, movies Streaming entertainment Stan, Fetch TV, Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube Red, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Foxtel Now…
Games Those require monthly subscription fees; Gaming networks XBOX Live, PlayStation Network, World of Warcraft…
Productivity tools, software, apps Subscription based software / web sites for personal or family use Office 365, Adobe CC, anti-virus subscription, RunKeeper Pro, Evernote Plus, Trello Gold…
Files storage Services that stores files or backups of files online CrashPlan, BackBlaze; Additional storage space on OneDrive, MEGA, Dropbox, iCloud, Google Drive…
Membership Paid memberships to online communities, publications, news or services Reddit Gold, dating web sites, Motley Fool, Medium membership, 500px Pro, Amazon Prime, The Age, SMH, New York Times…
Internet services Web hosting, server hosting, VPN, blog hosting, USENET access, domain name registration and hosting, email services, virtual servers GoDaddy, AWS, Digtial Ocean, WordPress, Namecheap…
Don't include the following in the monthly spend:
Category Description Examples
Internet access Your mobile plan, mobile data packs; Home internet service e.g. NBN, DSL or cable
One-off purchase Digital purchases that give you access forever. I.e. Does not incur regular monthly or yearly payments Buying apps, games, movies, books, etc. from an app store
Physical goods Food delivery, taxi hire, printed magazines subcriptions, online shopping eBay, Uber, Hello Fresh
Work related Services paid by your employer; Services you paid for business purposes
Donations "Pure" donations without additional services
Pornographic or offensive materials Let's keep the discussion clean

Thanks for participating!

Poll Options expired

  • 13
    $1 - $10 per month
  • 21
    $11 - $20 per month
  • 23
    $21 - $50 per month
  • 5
    $51 - $100 per month
  • 0
    $101 - $150 per month
  • 2
    $151 or above per month
  • 37
    I thought the internet was free
Internet

Comments

  • myusername on 17/11/2017 - 10:44

    i pay for internet access and a vpn and then torrent what i want.

    still don't understand why people pay for streaming services when you can download them for free.

    • dcep on 17/11/2017 - 10:48
      +1

      why vpn ?

      didn't see any news that anyone got caught ?

      • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 11:28
        +1

        VPN not just to avoid being caught. I use PIA because:

        1. I can access region-locked YouTube videos (very very tangential benefit);

        2. I can access region-locked Netflix content;

        3. I'll avoid annoying (but meaningless) warning letters from my ISP for torrenting; and

        4. General privacy.

        Considering it's like $50-ish per year, it's pay-and-forget.

        • [Deactivated] on 18/11/2017 - 10:38

          Which VPN do you recommend? A friend was asking. I'm with Nord, but I got a good deal so now Nord is double the price.

    • chamzoo on 17/11/2017 - 10:52
      +1

      Agree you can download almost everything…but I'm willing to pay for my Netflix & Spotify. For the convenience alone it's worth it.

    • scotty on 17/11/2017 - 10:57
      +8

      still don't understand why people pay for streaming services when you can download them for free.

      Because in most cases it's infringing someone else's intellectual property. For some people it's morally wrong. In some countries it's actually illegal.

      • myusername on 17/11/2017 - 11:09
        -7

        Torrenting is making a copy of something that's already on the internet.

        • Diji1 on 17/11/2017 - 11:14
          +2

          And that is infringing someone's intellectual property. It's like a thought crime.

        • Zaenille on 17/11/2017 - 11:21
          +1

          It's still piracy regardless if you're getting a copy of the illegal copy or you somehow procured an illegal copy through your own means.

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 11:28
          +2

          @Diji1:

          Not sure if deliberate, but the whole concept of "thought-crime" is that it's over-the-top and ridiculous.

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 11:30
          -3

          @Zaenille:

          Doesn't matter. It's on the internet, I'm making a copy. I'm not depriving anyone of anything, I'm not damaging anything, what I do is none of anyone else's business.

        • myusername on 17/11/2017 - 11:52

          @0blivion:

          i like to think i'm using the interwebs for what it was initially intended for.

        • txchou on 17/11/2017 - 11:59

          @0blivion: This isn’t really true. It depends on whether you would have paid for the good or service if purchasing it was the only option you had.

          Also, on a macro scale, if everyone thought the way you do then a very large swath of movies, music, sports and television would disappear as those artists and sports people don’t do what they do for free. I assume you expect to be paid for your work, so it’s a bit hypocritical to expect them to work and not be paid for their work (not to mention the dozens of other types of jobs you would see in the movie credits).

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 13:12
          +1

          @txchou:

          Also, on a macro scale, if everyone thought the way you do

          This is a common hypothetical in ethics discussions, but falls apart pretty quickly in real life. As an example, if everyone turned on the A/C the same afternoon in summer, the electricity grid will break down. But that's hardly a reason for why people shouldn't use their A/C in summer.

          I assume you expect to be paid for your work

          Sure, but I get paid only once for my work. That's more an argument against you and IP rights than it is for you.

        • txchou on 17/11/2017 - 13:56
          +1

          @0blivion:

          It’s not really hypothetical, that is what the world was like before intellectual property rights like patents and copyright existed.

          It stifles innovation and reduces the level of art as people don’t share their inventions because there are no protections and there’s less music, books and theatre for the same reason.

          This period of plentiful shows, music and software exists because it can be released into the world and protected by law.

          You can argue about the outsized returns but the system itself is a massive net benefit to us all.

          Your second argument seems hard to implement. So if I were to write some software that takes a year to write then I should only be allowed to sell it once?

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 13:58
          +1

          @txchou:

          It stifles innovation and reduces the level of art as people don’t share their inventions because there are no protections and there’s less music, books and theatre for the same reason.

          That's a ridiculous assertion and betrays a complete lack of understanding of history. The entire Renaissance happened before intellectual property rights were a thing. Literally any art, literature, etc that was produced before the mid 1800s were done in an environment without modern intellectual property rights or protections.

          So if I were to write some software that takes a year to write then I should only be allowed to sell it once?

          No, you can sell it as many times as you want and are able to control its distribution. But look at any other analogy: If a master wood crafter spends a year making a beautiful dining table out of solid mahogany, he only gets to sell it once too.

        • txchou on 17/11/2017 - 14:24

          @0blivion: you might have that backwards, patents have existed since the 1400s and a strong patents system was integral to the success of the industrial revolution.

          Under your hypothetical system, software, music and film which takes a long time make and at great cost yet could only be sold for a small amount of money once would just not exist. It would all have to be like physical artworks or, in your example, furniture.

          I'm glad that we're fortunate and we don't live in your hypothetical world.

        • magic8ballgag on 18/11/2017 - 09:24

          @0blivion:

          No, you can sell it as many times as you want and are able to control its distribution. But look at any other analogy: If a master wood crafter spends a year making a beautiful dining table out of solid mahogany, he only gets to sell it once too.

          Not the best comparison, as the dining table is physical, and most media is intangible.

        • HighAndDry on 20/11/2017 - 15:51

          @Lorindor:

          Doesn't affect my argument though - tangible goods can only be sold once. That hasn't stopped people from producing, and selling, very expensive tangible products. I see no reason why it would do the same to intangible products - since the income to the producer being "one payment" is the same.

        • magic8ballgag on 20/11/2017 - 15:56
          +1

          @0blivion:

          I see no reason why it would do the same to intangible products - since the income to the producer being "one payment" is the same.

          I don't think you understand or appreciate the work that goes into the creation and production of music, TV series, movies etc.

      • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 11:15

        "Intellectual property rights" are artificial rights, not natural rights like private property. In the case of torrents, "infringing" on them is just sharing. These companies distribute digital copies because it makes them more money - I see nothing wrong with accessing a copy from the internet. It's as if someone blares music somewhere, and then demand that you either ignore it, or pay them to listen to it even if you can walk past for free.

        • scotty on 17/11/2017 - 11:22
          +1

          Whether it is right nor not is not determined by how you see it, but by the owner of that intellectual property.

          Music being broadcasted / performed publicly are sometimes case of fair use, but often shops etc have to pay a license fee to have the right to play those music on their premise.

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 11:23
          -1

          @scotty:

          Whether it is right nor not is not determined by how you see it, but by the owner of that intellectual property.

          Sure, next time you walk past my house, I demand that you pay me $10000 for looking at it. My property, so only how I see it matters right?

          Jeez mate, think about stuff before you put it on public display.

        • scotty on 17/11/2017 - 11:30
          +1

          @0blivion: As the owner of the house you can define what rights you want to grant to others. However "looking at your property" would be an obvious fair use case. You could drag me to court claiming compensation on my "infringement", but I trusted Australia's justice system would throw out this kind of ridiculous case.

          On the other hand, there have been people tried for intellectual infringement and charged.

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 11:40
          +1

          @scotty:

          Have you heard the term: Morals should define laws, not the other way around?

          Just because something might be illegal does not automatically make it wrong. Do you drive below/at the speed limit 100% of the time? Do you declare all your overseas purchases to pay tax on? etc.

        • scotty on 17/11/2017 - 12:29
          +1

          @0blivion: As I have stated in my first comment, intellectual property infringement in many cases are both morally and legally wrong. Now you want to argue on the ground of moral, but it appears that "morality" here is subjective, as quite a few people in this thread does not feel anything wrong with that.

          However, many do.

          Do you drive below/at the speed limit 100% of the time? Do you declare all your overseas purchases to pay tax on?

          I do consciously try to drive below/at the speed limit. I also feel bad that if I subconsciously drive over the speed limit, and if I receive speeding tickets because of that — I would gladly pay for my penalty. As of tax on overseas purchases — you mean the GST? Government has just submitted the report on GST collection of low value imported goods last week and it looks like we will all be paying it from next July. That would be a different topic though.

          Ultimately though, if morality is subjective and we are fine to do whatever as long as we see it — no wonder it's a mad world we are living in.

        • Almost Banned on 17/11/2017 - 12:41
          +2

          @0blivion: You have no property in what other people see.
          In fact, you have no property in the reflection of light off anything you display to the public at large where there is no expectation of privacy.
          Once you have reduced that to tanglible form (painting, photo, drawing whatever), then that incarnation of the view does attract protections.
          Nor can you enforce that type of entitlement by unilateral contract.
          Your sarkiness is not only misplaced but unnecessary.

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 13:14

          @blaircam:

          In fact, you have no property in the reflection of light off anything you display to the public at large

          So 1s and 0s on the internet are free game then.

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 13:15

          @scotty: Your first comment says:

          For some people it's morally wrong.

          So you admit it's subjective.

          Ultimately though, if morality is subjective

          Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying - at least in this case. And again, you seem to agree.

        • txchou on 17/11/2017 - 14:36

          @0blivion: No, the moment something is published on the internet it will be covered by copyright law.

        • Almost Banned on 30/11/2017 - 12:47

          @0blivion: I see your mythical LLB didn't cover copyright law…

        • txchou on 30/11/2017 - 15:15

          @blaircam:
          Copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works immediately when published (section 32 Copyright Act).

          Publishing includes making the work available online (s29).

          Yes, I have a law degree and studied IP law.

        • Almost Banned on 30/11/2017 - 15:49

          @txchou: Ok, but how does that relate to my question to Oblivion, who apparently does not think that Copyright should extent to digital works?

    • Ryanek on 17/11/2017 - 11:00

      Easier to watch streaming content on mobile. Providers like Optus, also makes most of them data free.

      • myusername on 17/11/2017 - 11:07
        +1

        but i have unlimited data.

        maybe it's my age haha

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 11:19
          +2

          It's actually a really narrow age-band that torrents but doesn't pay for streaming.

          Older people either don't use internet services as much, OR only use official streaming services, because torrenting requires a minimum level of tech literacy. ON THE OTHER HAND, people around 20yrs old or younger use streaming services because to them they've always existed and been convenient. It's the people around mid-late 20s/early 30s who grew up with the internet but NO good streaming services that really got into and know how to, and will, torrent.

        • Ryanek on 17/11/2017 - 11:40
          +1

          Sooo you have to download your movies, copy it to a NAS and stream it through plex or something. I couldn't be bothered.

        • myusername on 17/11/2017 - 11:44
          +2

          @Ryanek: download movies and play on media centre, pretty simple

        • whirlpool_guy on 17/11/2017 - 11:59

          @Ryanek: Very good point. Once you experienced a well designed service, you'll be a happy returning customer.

        • Ryanek on 17/11/2017 - 12:29

          @myusername: Yeah but how do consume your downloads on mobile?

        • HighAndDry on 17/11/2017 - 13:16
          +1

          @Ryanek:

          Honestly depending on the quality and speed of your internet, that IS sometimes more convenient. Ever tried having 3+ people all watching different stuff on netflix in the same house? Not pretty.

        • myusername on 17/11/2017 - 13:55

          @Ryanek: nah have a pc setup at home solely for downloading torrents etc

    • casho on 17/11/2017 - 14:22
      +1

      Because the people who create those shows, songs, books need to eat

      • myusername on 17/11/2017 - 14:51

        so do i my friend

  • Diji1 on 17/11/2017 - 11:13
    +2

    I hate spending money so it pisses me off that my own gummints made me purchase a VPN to maintain a right to privacy.

  • lupiter on 17/11/2017 - 11:33
    +1

    Personal + Family = (Apple Music + iCloud) + (AWS S3 + Netflix) = ~$40/month

    Not sure if the S3 usage counts, it's not a fixed amount but it is billed monthly, I use it for backups.

    Keep thinking about Youtube Red because the ads on mobile are really annoying… but so far not annoying enough.

    • Ryanek on 17/11/2017 - 11:43

      You must have missed this deal - https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/329794

      • lupiter on 17/11/2017 - 11:48

        Eh, it's only 3 months, then I'd have to go back to ads anyway. If it was Stan/Netflix and you're just watching one show a long free trail is handy, but on youtube I'm trying to be strong.

        Or trying to convince someone else to split a family Google Music sub with me :) currently all my friends use Spotify or Apple Music and have no interest in Youtube Red.

  • bikuta on 17/11/2017 - 11:33

    I don't mind paying a reasonable fee for services that I use. Sure you can find ways to get things for free, but if I didn't pay for it, someone else would have to. Eventually a declining economy would affect me personally.

  • Savas on 17/11/2017 - 11:49
    +3

    No $0 per month option? most you can get for free from trials, school, university, Microsoft Rewards, torrents.

    • whirlpool_guy on 17/11/2017 - 11:50
      +5

      Use this option: I thought the internet was free

  • txchou on 17/11/2017 - 11:52
    +1

    When Amazon launches in Oz, we might see a big uptake of Amazon Prime. The shipping benefits alone justify Prime for many people. The Prime video and other services are icing on the cake.

    • whirlpool_guy on 17/11/2017 - 12:42
      +1

      Personally I would skip Amazon Prime, if they couldn't consistently offer the lowest price.

      Yes, I consider myself an OzBargainer.

      • txchou on 17/11/2017 - 13:43

        Yes, this is on the basis that they almost always have the lowest price.

        I may be wrong but that’s the impression I get from our American friends.

  • Almost Banned on 17/11/2017 - 12:44
    +2

    I used to download stuff but always felt bad about it.
    Now that Netflix is quite cheap and has lots of stuff on it I gave up on the downloads.
    I pay $1 for Fetch Movies and about $15 for Netflix.
    My NBN plan is around $80 I think
    Nothing else I can think of.
    So around $96 per month.

  • pao2x on 17/11/2017 - 14:19

    Why does it include mobile and home internet plans? IMO those are not digital subscriptions, more like utilities

    • whirlpool_guy on 17/11/2017 - 16:33
      +1

      Don't include those. I should've used a sub-header above the 2nd table

  • whirlpool_guy on 17/11/2017 - 16:38
    +1

    Scanning through the comments. So far I noticed most people who replied paid for VPN and media streaming.

    No one want to pay for remote backups (except you, lupiter)? What about anti-virus, site memberships?

    • Savas on 17/11/2017 - 20:16

      I pay for Norton, it gives me peace of mind while torrenting (especially downloading software). I also think their remote access assist is a very good service and the virus removal promise is reassuring.

  • PVA on 17/11/2017 - 20:26

    Is normal Foxtel included?

    All I have is PlayStation Plus sub ( $69 year) and , if you count, Foxtel satellite( about $50 month)

    I think I want Netflix, using a friends account at the moment, but I'm an oldie and like how I can flip through channels of Foxtel and record shows easy ( wife has Neighbours on permanent record).
    Does Netflix have crappy shows like Foxels A&E channel, sometime a few shows are Ok.

  • jjjaar on 18/11/2017 - 00:21

    No $0 option?

  • HeWhoKnows on 18/11/2017 - 07:58

    Zero. Ziltch. Nothing

  • [Deactivated] on 18/11/2017 - 10:41

    I "donate" on Patron, but I get access to stuff, and I subscribe to a few twitch steamers. If there's an anime series I want to watch, I'll get anime lab or crunchy roll.

  • pao2x on 18/11/2017 - 15:45

    I pay $20 for Yes Fetch and a Landline. I occasionally get a netflix "free trial" for a binge. Haven't run out of those yet

  • Oz8argain on 20/11/2017 - 16:17
    +1

    gym, it's getting expensive, maybe i should just convert to home youtube yoga/body weight or something….

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join