The subscription squeeze comes for hardware

For long, every new generation of technology hardware has been meaningfully better than the last. The upgrade cycle was predictable, and consumers willingly paid a premium for the next big leap. But that era is fading. As hardware innovation slows and replacement cycles stretch, tech companies are searching for new ways to keep revenue flowing. Their answer is increasingly clear: subscriptions. Not just for services, but for unlocking capabilities that already exist inside the hardware you’ve purchased. Consumers are discovering that the devices they own are not fully theirs unless they pay a recurring fee. And the backlash is growing.

The new paywall

When the subscription economy first took off, it made intuitive sense. Cloud storage, streaming platforms, productivity suites—these were services that required ongoing infrastructure, licensing, and maintenance. A monthly fee felt fair. But the model has now crept into places where it feels far less justified.

Take the reMarkable paper tablet, beloved by writers, students, and professionals for its paper-like writing experience. The device itself costs a premium, but several of its most useful features such as handwriting conversion and cloud sync sit behind a subscription. I love my reMarkable for distraction-free reading and writing, but I didn’t expect to pay ₹299 per month just to use features that are already built into the hardware.

And this epidemic is everywhere. Last year, as a pretentious art connoisseur, I bought the Samsung Frame TV, marketed as a piece of digital art for your living room. It offers a rotating gallery of artworks… but only if you pay a monthly subscription. That’s another ₹299 per month. Without it, the TV’s signature feature feels incomplete.

Even Garmin, long admired for its one-time-purchase ethos, has begun experimenting with subscription-locked features. For athletes who already spend a premium on a smartwatch, this shift feels like a breach of trust. Ankit Sawant, a travel tech entrepreneur, has been using a Garmin Fenix 6X Sapphire watch for nearly six years. He believes that for Garmin, a subscription model is counter-intuitive to their core user base. “With Whoop, you pay for the subscription and hardware comes free—there’s a clear exchange. With Garmin, you’ve paid premium for the watch and they want recurring revenue on top.”

The why of it

“Someone like me sitting on the same hardware for six years isn’t a great business outcome for them,” says Sawant. He’s right. The hardware business is cyclical, capital-intensive, and increasingly unpredictable. Subscriptions, on the other hand, offer recurring revenue, predictable cash flow, and higher lifetime value per customer. Nir Eyal, the American author and lecturer, explained the subscription stickiness in his 2014 book Hooked. “Subscriptions work because they create habits. Once a behaviour becomes automatic, people rarely question it,” he wrote.

A 2024 Deloitte survey found that 47% of consumers feel overwhelmed by the number of subscriptions they manage, and 62% actively look for ways to reduce them. While most of this fatigue comes from streaming and digital services, hardware-linked subscriptions are emerging as a new pain point.

The software industry’s pivot to SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) influenced hardware makers. If Adobe and Microsoft can charge monthly for tools that used to be one-time purchases, why shouldn’t hardware companies do the same?

The problem is that consumers don’t see hardware the same way they see software. Unlike streaming, hardware subscriptions feel like paying twice for the same device, renting features already built into the product, and a violation of ownership norms. Plus, there’s the nickel-and-dime problem. A ₹299 monthly fee may seem small, but when multiplied across devices—phones, tablets, TVs, wearables, home appliances—it adds up.

Consumers also worry that companies will continue to lock more features behind paywalls, turning essential functions into premium add-ons. According to Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioural economics at Duke University and author of multiple books on the subject, “Subscriptions are designed to reduce the ‘pain of paying.’ When the cost becomes automatic and invisible, people stop evaluating whether they’re getting value.”

This fear is not unfounded. BMW famously experimented with charging a subscription for heated seats—a feature physically present in the car. The backlash was swift and brutal.

Rishi Alwani, video games consultant and analyst, 0451 Games, believes subscriptions are anti-consumer. “You’re essentially at the platform’s mercy on accessing content you paid for,” he adds while pointing me to several such breaches of trust in the gaming industry.

Game publishers have killed off games that were structured as always online affairs with no offline play, ensuring they have a kill switch to use and abuse at any given time. They have also been guilty of not shipping entire games on disc, forcing players to update them before they could start playing, thereby subtly pushing them towards subscriptions.

What's next

Not all subscriptions are created equal. Some–like cloud storage, streaming services, security and digital safety tools, and productivity suites genuinely add value. Plus, there’s AI-powered tools now. These involve ongoing costs for the company—compute, storage, and product updates. Essentially, if the feature runs locally on the device and doesn’t require continuous infrastructure, charging a subscription feels exploitative.

Additionally, the danger is that once companies normalize subscription-locked hardware, the boundaries will keep shifting. Imagine paying monthly for high-resolution camera modes, fast charging, advanced health metrics, or even better performance.

It is likely that the subscription trend will intensify before it stabilizes. Companies will push the model as far as consumers allow. But there will be a breaking point. The brands that overreach will face backlash and churn. Or, if one major brand takes a strong stance against subscription-locked hardware, it could become a competitive advantage. Consumers might reward companies that respect ownership.

Plus, a regulatory intervention, especially in the EU, where right-to-repair and digital fairness laws have sufficient momentum, might also force the market to self-correct.

A lot of people are okay paying for subscriptions, mind you, as long as they don’t feel cheated or manipulated. Sawant, for example, was miffed at Garmin, but did subscribe to Bevel, an AI-powered app for similar health and wellness insights.

The subscription economy has reshaped how we consume entertainment, software, and services. But as it expands into hardware, companies must tread carefully. In a world full of subscriptions, the brands that win will be the ones that know when not to charge.