Logitech, the company known for computer accessories, recently stirred up a storm with the idea of a “forever mouse” that would require a subscription. The idea was met with widespread criticism and backlash from consumers.
The Forever Mouse Fiasco
- The Concept: Logitech’s CEO suggested a high-quality mouse that would last forever with proper care, similar to a luxury watch. To maintain this “forever” status, users would pay a subscription for software updates.
- Public Outrage: People were furious at the idea of paying for something they already own. Comparisons were drawn to other subscription-based products like car features and printer ink, which have also faced criticism.
- Logitech’s Backpedal: Facing overwhelming negative feedback, Logitech quickly denied any plans for a subscription mouse, claiming the idea was merely a speculative concept.
Why the Subscription Model is Unpopular
- Consumer Fatigue: People are already overwhelmed with subscriptions for streaming services, software, and other products. Adding another subscription for a simple mouse is seen as excessive.
- Product Ownership: Consumers expect to own physical products outright and have full control over them without ongoing fees.
- Lack of Value: Many people don’t see the value in paying for software updates for a mouse, especially since most mice function perfectly well without them.
Logitech’s “forever mouse” idea was a major misstep. It highlights a growing consumer frustration with subscription-based models and the desire for traditional product ownership.