332
Apparently one of the wallpapers is just solid orange. It's called "Orange", is labeled as "abstract", and is labeled with a copyright.
It's a solid orange rectangle.
The artist spent a lot of time on that!
Months to get that perfect shade of orange.
And just the effort of painting every one of those pixels one by one, it's not like we have some magic tool to fill an image with the same color and call it a day.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Anish Kapoor strikes again
No sane individual is going to pay for a subscription for phone backgrounds.
That is absolutely a stupid business idea and the people who came up with it should be publicly shamed.
You think it's new? It's have already done by so many people in Android community. Like Widepaper, Wallfever, Wallbyte etc. These all apps are paid. People actually pay for Wallpapers.
Remember when people paid for ringtones? Doesn't mean it isn't stupid, especially as a subscription, but people do stupid things and other people take advantage.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
It costs $49.99 per year (or $11.99 per month)
Why in the hell does the monthly price end with you paying 280% more than the yearly. That is such an absurd discount I don't even know why someone would pay at all for this app but more so I want to understand where the price justification is and who came up with this plan.
To be clear I support artists and more than welcome a platform for them to share and sell art if they wish... I don't get why it needs to be a subscription service and I don't see how such inflated charges are going to help artists as it'll just discourage large numbers of people wanting to support them.
Short version: there’s an $80 bread maker with 5 features, a $120 bread maker with 12 features, and a $475 bread maker with 14 features.
The $475 bread maker only exists to make the $120 version look like a bargain.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I want to understand where the price justification is
The justification is that people should be yearly subscribers when they can more easily forget to cancel it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Who would pay for this?
Marques has a decent chunk of his fan base that's...kinda rich? That's the only thing that can explain why he reviews supercars and expects people to use their phone without a case. So if he's directing some of that fan base's money toward artists, I'm all for it, assuming the profit sharing is reasonable (and I have no reason to believe it's not).
I mean, I'm not going to pay that sort of money on a wallpaper (I almost always use photos of family or friends anyway). But if the people who buy it like it, and the people who sell art for it are treated well, you go MKBHD.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Marques Brownlee: "Don't pay for what something will be, pay for what it is now" and "I don't review what will be, but what a product is now"
Also Marques Brownlee: "Pay the subscription fee now for the unnamed unspecified features this will have other than just wallpapers now to fund future development"
Who knew the next company he would "kill" would be his own. The only way to find his app on Android is to use the link from his site because of the generic name.
BTW Wallpaper Engine, which has an android app, is currently $5 Canadian, and I am told with Proton can also work on Linux PC's and has an huge amount of modifiable wallpapers.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Wallpapers on phone are useless because apps are always full screen.
Who would pay for such thing?
This guy is no different than every other smarmy "Tech Reviewer" on YT. His reviews have been borderline useless for the last few years. This is just the next logical step that these guys take - hitch themselves onto a tech accessory or app and charge their followers predatory prices - fuck this guy.
It's kind of a paradox when you think about it. Good reviewers are often just regular people with a passion for tech but as they become more popular and prolific they become part of the industry itself. Once that happens even if they try to stay objective and critical their perspective is so different from regular people that reviews are just part of the sales and marketing strategy rather than pro tips from an enthusiast.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Paying for ANY wallpaper is just silly, much less a subscription model.
The only time you should pay for one if it’s an artist you want to actively support and/or thank for that specific work.
For the last 30 years, they've been trying to charge for dumb shit like wallpapers, screen savers, mouse cursors.
Who are these people who buy them? And what's wrong with you?
When toy story came out, i saw this toy story pc game. I put all my money together just to then find out that it wasn't a game, it was a cd rom with like 12 wallpapers on it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Can people no longer upload a JPG to their phones? What am I missing here?
It sounds like it's a way to get high quality original art / photos for use as backgrounds and support the people making them too.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Everyone that buys this garbage deserves to lose their money.
"I hear you"
Corporate PR phrase detected. Product mentally blacklisted
50/50 cut is borderline predatory. It should be 30/70. It feels like marques is so out of touch with common people.
Muzei - a free wallpaper changer on f-droid
It has many sources for images, like NASA APOD, masterpieces, NatGeo, Ghibli and others.
I started to get worked up but then i remembered I don't particularly care. He's in it to make bank, not necessarily sell you a quality product. If he were, he wouldn't be selling a wallpaper app.
load more comments
(2 replies)
See these people as entertainment and not as reviewers, influencers. They are not more than entertainment companies.
Secondly, I don't see him as the dev of the app. I don't know which company dev it and he put his name on it. This brings us to the cut. 50 artist, 25 him, 25 dev company. Without him, the dev company has no chance.
If I'm looking my definition, it looks like a scam.
"curated wallpapers" including random generated stuff, and "shares profits" on a 50/50 basis, for a shitty app developed by what looks like three fivers in a trench coat.
Paying for wallpapers is just not justifiable to me, especially when there are so many sources that offer high quality wallpapers for free, from apps to dedicated forums to simply online search.
It's cool for people with lots of extra cash I guess. I like that 50% of profits go to the artists.
That said, I am certainly not one of those people with extra money to spend on wallpapers. Seems like we're not the target demographic.
Maybe that's part of this guy's problem here. His channel has a broader appeal than the app, so the people outside the app's target demographic got irritated.
I don't understand why the internet is unable to say "I don't like this app, so I won't pay for it" rather than "I don't like this app, so you're a bad person". Hundreds of people raging over and catastrophising something they never bought or even heard of until now.
load more comments
(2 replies)
New "LOOK I AM RICH" app.
There are infinite list of things and services that are way too expensive for me to even consider buying but I also don't go around complaining about them. Move on guys.. If you want free wallpapers you can try one of the other 9000 free wallpaper apps available. This is recreational outrage.
Wow I had no idea the subscription was that much. He mentioned it in a video without saying the price and I still wouldn't do it.
Here’s his wallpaper: MKBSD
Calling them underwhelming is an overstatement. I can find at least 50 better ways to burn my money.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Lol screw this dude, never liked him to begin with.
The first time i saw one of his reviews, i thought, "This guy isn't genuine." "That's not an opinion. it's a specification disguised as an opinion."
He gave off real shill vibes, and then i later found out he was an apple simp, and it all came together. He isn't super biased, but he definitely gives more providence to apple products.
His recent review of the apple vr headset was too nice. He said some bad things but qualifies each critisism with a "but i like that" or "but it's not a deal breaker."
Maybe i created a bias against him based on my early impressions, but i just get a bad vibe from him. He doesn't seem to give his opinions.
I will say, though, an exception would be that rabbit thing he reviewed poorly recently and got some backlash from the manufacturer for. I believe he then came back and justified his review. Although everyone was reviewing it poorly so he would give the game away if he said it was good. So perhaps its not an exception... i dont know. Im just freestyling this comment....
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
332 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
76996 readers
1975 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS