318
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.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
318 points (93.2% liked)
Technology
59366 readers
3594 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
If I want a unique wallpaper I go on a walk in the great outdoors and take a picture
load more comments
(3 replies)
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Avoid sites like Fiver, though. Lots of AI bullshit pretending to be real art.
Even before the flood of AI bullshit Fiverr really, really sucked for the human artists, creatives, coders, and other freelancers employed through the platform.
I made a Fiverr account once for my art services. I deleted it within an hour of creation after reading how much money they would steal from my commissions.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I've not looked into it, but it's probably pitched as a feel-good way of supporting artists.
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)
$50 a year for wallpapers or I could go to wallhaven and get millions for free?
The "shares its profits with the artists" part is relevant here.
It would almost be cheaper to commission an artist frankly.
Almost is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
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.
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.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(9 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
(12 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)
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)
Wallpapers on phone are useless because apps are always full screen.
Who would pay for such thing?
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?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Everyone that buys this garbage deserves to lose their money.
"I hear you"
Corporate PR phrase detected. Product mentally blacklisted
Muzei - a free wallpaper changer on f-droid
It has many sources for images, like NASA APOD, masterpieces, NatGeo, Ghibli and others.
load more comments
(1 replies)
50/50 cut is borderline predatory. It should be 30/70. It feels like marques is so out of touch with common people.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
view more: next ›