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.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month 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.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month 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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month 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.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    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.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month 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.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

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

          • yggstyle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

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

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            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.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              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.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        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.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.