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.

  • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’ve never liked this guy, he just always felt like a smarmy asshole each time I tried to watch him and he shilled Apple stuff way too hard for my liking. Blocked his channel and several channels that collabed with him and was mostly able to ignore his existence. Doing something shitty like this kinda adds confirmation to my perceptions of him. What an out of touch douche move.

  • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month 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
          0
          ·
          1 month 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
          0
          ·
          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
            0
            ·
            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
              0
              ·
              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
        0
        ·
        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.

  • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month 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.

      • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month 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.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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.

  • Teknikal@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Wasn’t he also behind the redline icon pack (which I do actually like) but yeah subscription for something you can easily find your own images or even just ask an AI to make.

    Subscriptions aren’t something I’ll ever buy into software wise and if they are offering an actual service it better be worth the money and give me more than an image.

  • dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month 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

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I got a Note 2 at launch and was showing it off at work to people interested in it.

      someone asked about the background and where I got it. said I took it and left it at that.

      took the pic of the top of my bathroom trashcan while dumping some toxic waste.

      pic is the same trashcan now, like me it’s a bit dented, dirty, and doesn’t open as well as it used to. but, it still works.

      Screenshot_20240924-194405_Gallery

  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • djsaskdja@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah it seems like a weird thing to get mad about. No one is forcing anyone to pay this guy for his wallpaper app. Keep watching his videos if you enjoy them or don’t. The wallpaper app seems as inconsequential as his DBrand shilling. I watch his reviews every year and I’ve never bought anything from DBrand lol. Mostly because the products look like shit tbh.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month 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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month 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.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month 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.

      • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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.

  • franiis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think I would like the idea (and at first this my understanding) if you could buy one wallpaper for $1 (or a pack of few for $3) and the 70-90% would go to the artist. Also app would have to limit tracking to just some basic stuff. I know you can get wallpapers free, but supporting something that looks great on your screen would be a nice option.

    Of course subscription service for this is mad.

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

  • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month 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.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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
        0
        ·
        1 month 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
          0
          ·
          1 month 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

    • SagXD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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
        0
        ·
        1 month 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
          0
          ·
          1 month 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.

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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.

  • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.