Marques Brownlee says he’s working to dial back the ads.

Marques Brownlee, known as MKBHD, faced backlash over his new wallpaper app, Panels, due to its high subscription cost ($49.99/year) and concerns over excessive data permissions.

Brownlee acknowledged user feedback, promising to adjust ad frequency for free users and address privacy concerns, clarifying that the app’s data disclosures were broader than intended.

The app, which offers curated wallpapers and shares profits with artists, aims to improve over time, despite criticisms of its design and monetization approach.

  • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    176·
    2 months ago

    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.

        • mamg22@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          8·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          Perhaps more likely years of work with colour and colour theory preceding a quick output of some content? Why the sarcastic tone?

          • willow@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            The sarcastic tone is likely because of the price. There is something jarring about such a simple product, even if it was made by an artist with a good eye for color, being behind such a large paywall. Most people find this app, even forgetting “Orange,” to be overpriced, myself included. It should be expected for people to use the most extreme examples to point out the absurdity and to laugh at it, especially when it’s being marketed to the public.

            Had this been an app you buy for $10 once, still there would be people like this, but much less. And if it were free, for example, nobody would bat an eye. The outrage is caused by price.

            I’m not invested in this debacle at all, really. I just found your lack of understanding interesting. Not trying to offend you by that.

            • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              2 months ago

              Sure. I definitely do not disagree about the price but I wish you’d made it about that and not the art. Have a good Friday!

      • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        2 months ago

        That is a measure of exactly nothing.

        https://www.nme.com/photos/30-minutes-or-less-19-famous-songs-written-at-staggering-speed-1422651

        Your post makes it very clear that you have little experience in the creative world. There is no linear measure of successs or quality. You do a great disservice to those toiling with their creativity by making comments such as this one. We need artists, they are fragile things and should be treated with care.

        I didn’t start this post planning to get hetup but I do feel that taking umbrage to your comment is fair, if not tautological.

        I would encourage you to labour over a still life or wrestle a passable rendition of your favourite guitar riff. Try sing the first phrase of your favourite song in key. Trust me: none of those things are easy.

        If you don’t like “Orange” then just look at something else and hold your tongue.

  • dinckel@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1562·
    2 months ago

    I feel this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but if you want unique wallpapers, consider paying an actual artist, instead of an influencer

  • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1185·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • sag@lemm.eeEnglish
      462·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        352·
        2 months ago

        I think buying an app for a couple of quid that has a good curated collection of wallpapers, a nice UX, etc. is a completely fair price to pay for the convenience. I like supporting devs. I fail to see the stupidity.

        A $12 monthly subscription is an entirely different beast, though.

        • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          2 months ago

          Or even a market that let you just buy individual wallpapers as you want them, like how you used to be able to buy individual tracks in itunes instead of a whole album.

          A subscription model is a bit silly.

    • spongebue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      20·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 months ago

        And Ringback tones too. For when people called you, so they could listen to your favorite song instead of the ring of the phone while waiting for you to pick up.

        • spongebue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          2 months ago

          I forgot about that! And most songs sound like ass when you hear it over a phone, especially before whatever they did in the last decade to make voice calls more clear

    • Toribor@corndog.socialEnglish
      7·
      2 months ago

      Back in the day people paid for ringtones, wallpapers, etc. Dumbest thing ever were ‘ringbacks’ where you paid to have a song or something play when people called you. So the people buying it didn’t even hear it, they just forced other people to listen to a shitty low fidelity garbled mess of a song they liked while you waited for them to pick up the phone.

  • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
    997·
    2 months ago

    $50 a year for wallpapers or I could go to wallhaven and get millions for free?

          • yggstyle@lemmy.worldEnglish
            213·
            2 months ago

            Nah it’d be cheaper to commission the artist for a dozen or so pictures for 45 bucks:

            First you need to blow some ungodly amount of money on breaking the time/space barrier… Then travel back to the 1920s and find a starving artist. Then pitch him 45 bucks for some art. Easy! 45 bucks to them is like 800 of our today dollars.

            Sarcasm aside- it seems people really are disconnected on how much a commission or art costs. Sure you can buy prints reasonably priced but any commission that isn’t a speedy doodle is going to clock in a helluva lot higher.

        • MagnyusG@lemmy.worldEnglish
          201·
          2 months ago

          For a single piece sure.

          I presume the idea here is that you have access to their full library. Personally, I fail to see why I would change my wallpaper enough to warrant even a free app to change it, let alone 50 bucks.

        • yggstyle@lemmy.worldEnglish
          111·
          2 months ago

          If you know an artist doing commissions that cheap they are depressed, desperate, or want to fuck you.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nlEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        Did he disclose an amount?

        5% to artists is very different than 40% to artists.

        Or is he adopting the Spotify bottom line?

        Only pay artists after X downloads and only pay a few cents after thousands of downloads and use the rest for profits

          • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nlEnglish
            33·
            2 months ago

            50% is quite decent and is 20% higher than most other “decent” services including physical stores. Building and keeping an app up to date with ever changing content requires at least a part time developer which is expensive.

            • morrowind@lemmy.mlEnglish
              4·
              2 months ago

              Well the baseline is that most wallpaper apps, which don’t pay artists afaik, charge like $5 a year, so if you’re gonna charge me 50, I expect 90% to go to artists

      • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
        63·
        2 months ago

        I’m an artist who has uploaded many of my works to wallhaven entirely for free online, alongside the games I put out and any other creative venture I’ve pursued over the years.

        That part is problematic not relevant.

  • emax_gomax@lemmy.worldEnglish
    66·
    2 months ago

    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.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 months ago

        Also the nature of a wallpaper app, maybe you just want to plop in get a wallpaper and scamper off into the sunset.

        Matter of fact for the $50 a year price I could sign back up for a month twice a year and still come out on top.

      • emax_gomax@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        But in the end you get more feature for a higher price. In this case it’s the same app for different prices depending on time frame… not to mention the app has no purpose beyond finding a wallpaper so it only really has 1 feature.

        • EvilBit@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 months ago

          The point is not whether there are more features. The point is to give you an incentive to go yearly, and in this case it’s a huge “discount” even though it’s in no way worth the monthly cost. The monthly plan isn’t meant to sell you the monthly plan. It’s meant to make the yearly plan look good.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • FischEnglish
        9·
        2 months ago

        I use my phone without a case too, phones don’t break that easily. I even dropped it on stone tiles once when I missed my pocket and it only got a few scratches on the side from that.

          • FischEnglish
            11·
            2 months ago

            Skill issue on their part

              • FischEnglish
                1·
                2 months ago

                That was a joke, whether or not your phone screen cracks it obviously not a skill issue

      • Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        2 months ago

        Im not rich and I use my phone without a case and watch some of those reviews.

        The app is a bad idea with a bad deal for artists.

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          2 months ago

          Im not rich and I use my phone without a case

          I guess you could also have fairly sticky hands.

          and watch some of those reviews.

          Yeah, sometimes I do too, if only for the novelty of it. But they’re certainly not for us.

          The app is a bad idea with a bad deal for artists.

          Citation needed. Do you have any data on the app’s profit share structure? Because at the price they’re charging, if they’re passing on a decent share of it to the artists, it sounds like it’s not a bad gig.

          • Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            Fifty fifty is what MKB said was the split, which is a predatory figure. Apple charges less and people are up in arms about their predatory practices.

            I dont know what the sticky hands comment means.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              I dont know what the sticky hands comment means.

              I’m not brave enough to use my phone without a case, because I know I’ll drop it. Either you’re braver than me, richer than me, or you have better grip than me.

              Fifty fifty is what MKB said was the split, which is a predatory figure.

              50% of the revenue or 50% of the profit? Because if they’re paying the artists first and footing the bill for hosting the app out of the other 50%, that’s a pretty good deal.

              • Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                2 months ago

                I just dont like cases and take the risk. Phones are nicer looking without.

                He didnt specify which would lead me to believe profits. Neither is a good split, he is charging as much as spotify for content he did not create and keeping half.

                • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  I just dont like cases and take the risk. Phones are nicer looking without.

                  No doubt, but I don’t have that kind of cash to burn on the aesthetics.

                  Neither is a good split, he is charging as much as spotify for content he did not create and keeping half.

                  Hosting and maintaining an application actually has some pretty non-trivial cost associated with it. If it’s half of revenue, then MKBHD actually isn’t taking very much at all.

  • WolvenSpectre@lemmy.caEnglish
    49·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      Regarding Wallpaper Engine on KDE Plasma, since I switched to Linux a few days ago: here is the repo for the one KDE Wallpaper Plugin i found that worked fine on Nobara. Subscribe to the Wallpapers in Steam, point the plugin to the steam library, done. just know that there are some wallpapers not working yet, which makes plasmashell crash, but no biggie, change the wallpaper and restart plasmashell again.

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. You have to ask yourself a question: is offering an expensive upfront subscription for an evolving product an endorsement of assessing future value into your purchase. In my view, it isn’t and it’s not what he’s saying.

      What he is saying is that to the minority who will find this a good value or who are okay donating to help them implement new features, go ahead and hit that button. Then separately he’s saying “the price will make more sense to more people as features are added” which is true but is not an endorsement of paying the current price for those promised features. At least from what’s in the article and what I’ve seen.

      It’s the difference between saying that you should buy Minecraft because it will become an awesome game one day versus saying you should buy Minecraft because it’s either worth it to you now or you’re okay with helping to fund the development of future features you’ll receive. Those are very different.

      • billhead@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        5·
        2 months ago

        Minecraft was already awesome when I purchased it in 2011, I didn’t have to get promised vague future features.

        • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          I agree. But that’s a subjective stance obviously. I think since Minecraft was priced appropriately for its current value, there was no need to consider future value increasing. And on that basis they could have sold the game for more and chose not to. Still the point is that even if most people didn’t consider it, it incentivizes early purchases. If it were priced at the 1.0 build price at alpha launch, only die hard supporters would have bought it. Everyone else would wait. Same thing here.

      • localhost443English
        2·
        2 months ago

        Also Minecraft is a good example of why his argument is shit as that started off at a low price and increased as it became more complete

        • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          You’ve just showed me why my point works. If you buy in now, your early purchase of Minecraft becomes more valuable over time as stuff is added. Therefore, buying now is better than buying later.

          Whereas with his app, it’s overpriced now and will add features until that value proposition is met for more people. That discourages you from buying it and there’s no reason to buy it. Especially since it’s a subscription.

          Now could he have done the Minecraft model? Yes. And since it’s a subscription, the price can go up slowly with no benefit to early adopters. I think the main reason he didn’t do that is because changing pricing this way generally doesn’t go well.

  • vxx@lemmy.worldEnglish
    494·
    2 months ago

    Wallpapers on phone are useless because apps are always full screen.

    Who would pay for such thing?

  • FergusonBishop@lemmy.worldEnglish
    45·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Toribor@corndog.socialEnglish
      31·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, I imagine him getting shipped products over and over and then likely being paid to try them out and then paid to review them would dampen the authenticity. That said, I haven’t watched much of his content so I couldn’t tell you if he really was really bias or changed over time.

        • overload@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          He’s on the better side of tech reviewers IMO. I think sometimes he’s more focussed on describing what sets a product apart in the market, rather than judging whether that niche is worth filling or not.

          Definitely doesn’t feel scammy/overly ad driven.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.worldEnglish
    40·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.netEnglish
      211·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • BruceTwarzen@lemm.eeEnglish
        20·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • FinishingDutch@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          2 months ago

          I still have PTSD from the era of the ‘polyphonic ringtone’ hype. Those were the ‘fancier’ ringtones that weren’t just your usual beep or bell.

          Usually you’d buy them by sending a text message to some expensive number and it would be sent to your phone. If you were dumb, you could get basically scammed into a ‘subscription’ so you’d get sent these expensive ringtones frequently. Many a teen got yelled at for that mistake in the late 90’s.

          If you were a tech savvy lad, you could hook your phone up to your Windows PC and upload shitty ringtones yourself as well as wallpapers and such.

          These days, who gives a shit? My iPhone ringtone is still the default ring. I honestly don’t care what it is, as it’s usually just annoying anyway.

        • jonne@infosec.pubEnglish
          6·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, that was a cash cow for a few years and now everybody has their phone on vibrate.

        • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.netEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          I remember watching the rich kid in middle school buy a ring tone right in front of me, flexing that his device could play a 12-second loop of Tubthumping by Chumbawamba.

          • locuester@lemmy.zipEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, that rich kid Danny. He plays the songs that remind him of the good times and sings the songs that remind him of the better times. Oh Danny Boy, Danny Boy, Danny Boy

    • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I agree, although i DID spend 5€ on wallpaper engine and i am very happy with it. (just know that our chinese friends are using the steam workshop for WPE to upload/download porn because most porn sites are great-firewalled lol, so take care regarding your filter settings)

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        I actually do have WPE… it was in a bundle one time, so I got it for free. Tried it once, but I’m conceptually not a fan of running extra software on my gaming PC to run fancy wallpapers.

        Supposedly it’s not TOO power hungry and can turn itself off when gaming. How’s your experience been with that?

        • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          I’m currently running 2 displays at 1080p (one HDMI, one DP) on a 3070TI. Idle TDP with just plain color is 37-40W, 2 different scenes with features like audio reactivity and mouse input @15FPS are 55-60W. They get paused automatically when a window is maximized (per display), the secondary display pauses additionally when i run a fullscreen/borderless window on the main display.

          It is absolutely useless eye candy. I love it lol

          ETA: They DO have over 15000 curated wallpapers, if you stick to that you can avoid the questionable content easily. if you look at it from this perspective, that’s worth the price of a small meal.