While it doesn't directly explore it, it is mentioned in Ubik:

“The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.” He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.” “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.” In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. “You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug. From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door. “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.”

This already exists -- search online for "smart locks".

It's only a matter of time before smart locks start charging a subscription fee. "Pay to manage your home's entry/exit security."

Without a doubt, smart-lock makers are thinking about and want to figure out how to get consumers to subscribe.

The subscriptions already exists, too.

Search online for "smart lock subscription".

Of course it already exists. Silly me.

I can add smart locks to my home alarm system. Which is also a subscription, of course.

Oh yes, the subscription fatigue is real! I can barely stand to create new login accounts for things I actually need anymore, much less things I only marginally want.

This reminds me of the survey fatigue I experienced 10+ years ago. All of a sudden it seemed that every company and organization was attempting to get you to do email or phone surveys. I made a hard rule then I've stuck to ever since - if your for-profit company wants valuable time and information from me, pay me first.

Some subscriptions make sense. Someone is doing work for you every week, like trash collection, and you pay as you need their work.

This said, your point largely stands.

>It seems we're on the path to a hellish future in which we all have to pay up for hundreds (thousands?) of subscriptions to go about our daily lives.

That's the dream of many who actually own the things, everyone else coming into this world and leaving it exactly the same, owning nothing and paying for every moment they exist.

Yeah it reminds me of that episode of black mirror where you had to ride the exercise bike to get enough credits to go do something. Once you did a thing you weren't able to do it again unless you built up enough credits. That is where we are heading. IMO it will increase the wealth gap significantly.

I saw "riding the bike" in that Dark Mirror episode as an analogy for having an incredibly dull, repetitive job -- the implication being, of course, that most jobs are incredibly dull and repetitive. As an analogy, it probably wasn't too far off the mark!

I have a sneaky suspicion that as interest rates increase, subscription models will become much less popular. Sellers would rather have the money today, since the present value of future subscription payments becomes less. The "everything as a service" model makes the most sense in a zero interest rate environment.

Do you have a subscription to electric power? The standard model is just pay for use.

Call it a variable-price pay-per-use subscription.

Because that's what it is.

At least where I live you do pay a subscription that is related to how much power you have available as well as a few other services and taxes. And, on top of that, you pay the actual usage.

They call it a "connection fee" or something like that. 5, 10, 20 dollars added on your bill for simply being connected to the utility. When my only gas appliance was the heating, I got bills every month in the summer with 0 usage but I still owed them money.

Every utility does this. They all tack on extra fees for imaginary purposes.

> They all tack on extra fees for imaginary purposes.

I can assure you maintaining all the infrastructure so gas can still be delivered in the winter is not imaginary.

It's not like during the summertime all the gas company workers get laid off and nothing happens at the utility.

That's a rationalization. The utility will already be balancing their budget to accommodate seasonal consumption. It happens every year, it's pretty trivial to plan for.

Plus, you're making the very large assumption that all of these fees are actually being used for infrastructure. I think you'll find in most cases that the amount spent on infrastructure is vastly lower than the amount of fees collected.

I pay a service fee for my internet connection, and so do the other several million people the utility services. So why do new customers have to pay thousands of dollars to have a new fiber run down their street? Why is infrastructure not upgraded to handle the actual load? Lines are so oversold that you typically get a tenth of your rated bandwidth, on fiber.

Always remember that the utility is a for-profit company. Their goal is not to maintain high standard infrastructure and service, it's to make money. So they add on little fees that sound reasonable and hope you never think about it.

> I pay a service fee for my internet connection, and so do the other several million people the utility services.

Technically, internet connectivity is usually not considered a "utility" in the US. They have far fewer regulations than a utility like a gas company. It is not really accurate to compare a gas company to an ISP in the US.

The rates and fees which the gas company can charge me are controlled by government regulatory bodies here in Texas. I can't say the same for internet. The gas company needs to get approval for all their work, they can't arbitrarily add or change fees without approvals, and the rates per CCF are determined based on negotiations with regulators. And I'm in one of the most deregulated utility places in the US.

You'll own nothing and you will be happy. (World Economic Forum)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25068820 for those who haven't seen where that catchphrase originated from. Not surprisingly, perhaps the only bit of sci-fi that takes a positive perspective of non-ownership. Also not surprisingly, it's been deleted but you can find it in the web archive.

Theres a difference between utilities (water/power/garbage/internet/cell service) and subscriptions, which are almost always optional.

That said, you haul your own water and run off-grid electricity if you really wanted to.

> I'm so sick and tired of subscriptions

sounds like theres a product gap and a market need; lets make a subscription "subscription service" service - the last subscription you'll ever have to manage!

what if there was an open protocol with a public API where you could just purchase fungible subscription primitives and then disburse them into any SaaS like Netflix, JetBrains, or M365? you'd probably want an immutable transaction log for both consumer and business protections, and it would be better if the system were distributed and trustless so you don't have to worry about any funny business on anyones part. also you dont have to count on those privateering, regulatory-captured bankers to prevent or replace erronerous double-spends and manage payment disputes - all the records are chained together and auditable!

I am no longer having fun writing this post. fungible subscription primitives - i made myself sad.

I stopped doing these types of posts long ago, because there is always somebody around who'll look at what was clearly meant to be a cautionary tale, and in it see a brilliant thing that just must be made as soon as they finish the pitch deck.

Repo Men (2010) paints a pretty good picture of what this will look like taken to it's end.

I mean this is explored in many critiques of IP rights, monopolies, and capitalism.

I feel housing is slowly inching towards this hellish future too. More corporations buying homes and general unaffordability will lead to mostly renters.