Pragmatic app pricing

Gotta respect Marco for all the success he's had with Tumblr, InstaPaper, (briefly) Peace, and of course Overcast so far...but I kinda feel like he is worried about the wrong thing/people here.

Who cares if other devs. or companies don't like his business model? Does that affect his users or potential customers in any real way? I don't think so.

Also - the patron model is super interesting and I'm excited to see people continue to play with and test it...but I'm not sold that it's a sustainable solution either.

The question to me is: Do people care enough to pay for podcasts? And for those that do, in their mind are they actually paying for the content or the experience/environment? What pain is this specific app itself actually fixing or removing compared to my alternatives?

Marco has proven he's amazing at building experiences and environments people love...and I think he can continue to do very well down that path...but without owning/controlling/providing the content or the 'talent' on the client side he'll never break out of being just one of the middle-men in that part of the ecosystem (and thereby evaluated and paid by users as such).

The article's premise is that Big Money is rushing into podcasts but without giving details what that is. Maybe this is bad for Overcast and other clients, but it could mean that popular podcasts can make more money. Marco is definitely invested in that side of the equation, too, but doesn't talk about in this article.

Looks like we've got some interesting thoughts from Marco.

Seems like he regrets keeping Instapaper a paid app and not making it free to go after marketshare and take on Pocket. He seems to conclude he "lost" against Pocket, and now doesn't want to make the same mistake with Overcast.

I personally don't think the patronage model will go very far. I think he's doing more to make the full app free and gain marketshare, and any money made by "donations" is just bonus. If he can grow his marketshare and get a lot of users, then it looks like he's going to try to raise funds. So, this business model makes sense for now... at least until he's able to raise outside funds.

Overall, Marco seems to be insinuating that the podcast market is bigger than people think, and VC money is going to enter the space; thus, he wants to prepare for that and maximize the potential for his app and the possibility to raise funds and go really big.

It does seem that when VC funds enter a market it presents a challenge to existing indie developers who are making a living with a paid app. The VC-funded company will provide a great app (usually) for free, since they don't need a monetization stream right away. They usually are aiming to build a big audience and then monetize later.

Indie developers are then faced with a decision. How do they compete with VC funded companies? They likely are going to have to either make their app free and go head-to-head with these VC funded companies (and maybe raise money themselves to do so). Or they can narrow their scope and become more niche apps appealing to a more limited audience with high-end (hard-to-copy) features that might not appeal to the masses but to the minority who might pay.

But overall, Marco's blog post does bring up the challenges indie developers face when VC funded companies enter their space.

Would love to hear more thoughts on this.

If you need an income, you really can't compete as a new entrant in a crowded space. Big Money will wipe the floor with you, if not now, then eventually. You need to find an underserved market and own that instead.

Just one persons experience, obviously, but I have paid for podcasts before. Free podcasts are by far the majority of what I have listened to, but I pay to get the full episodes of "The NoSleep podcast", and have donated to other podcasts when they have the option there and I have liked them enough.