Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charge more for app subscriptions

mronge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 149 posts

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#31

Post by OJFord »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #18
OJFord wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regional price discrimination is nothing new, but I haven't heard of making it buyers' choice before - why aren't you using IP or some other method of determining region? The obvious answer is that it's defeatable, but if the alternative is then to make it a radio button (trivially 'defeatable'), that's clearly not it.

It's not intended to be non-defeatable. It's intended to recognize enormous disparities in income worldwide (and sometimes even within the same city). The user/buyer who elects to use a one-time payment gets to pick their own price, too: the default is pre-seeded based on OECD data on the cost of a mid-prize restaurant meal for two without alcohol, combined with IP address. Our motto has been (thus far): it doesn't m…

I realise that, I meant that as the usual response that clearly doesn't apply to your case.

What I'm not clear on is why you don't work out the correct region & pricing on the customer's behalf; why you leave it to honesty?

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#32

Post by seanwilson »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #25
seanwilson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We leave it to users to decide which category to select. Maybe you don't care about people in Senegal or Bangladesh or the Phillipines. That's certain an option, but some demonstration that this has crossed your mind is probably a good idea. Is there some automated way you could come up with reasonable pricing based on IP detected country? I use Paddle for payments and they offer localised pricing - you either ente…

Right now, most IP address detection mechanisms will place me in Albuquerque, NM. In reality, I'm about 70 miles from there. In the circle defined by that radius, there are families who barely earn $10k/yr and single individuals who earn millions per year. So IP address is not particularly useful in determining the "right price". That said, and as mentioned below, we do use IP address and OECD data on the cost of din…

Netflix, Adobe etc. would never be able to go with what's essentially a "pay what you like" or "pay what you claim you earn" subscription if that's what you're getting at. Isn't there something more practical than this?

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#33

Post by crooked-v »

egypturnash wrote: post #24
jrochkind1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the future when there's a generation of artists who grew up using other tools that were buy once, use until upgrading something else breaks it, and/or were easier to pirate. In the future when? Isn't that now ? Adobe changed to subscription model in 2013. Everyone that is paying subscription now grew up with the buy-once model, right? In the future, people will have grown up with adobe's current subscription mod…

Yeah I think it may be about now. And now that I think about it very few of the younger pro artists in my circles are using Adobe’s stuff, they’re using Clip Studio or Procreate for the most part.

The Affinity line of apps are also pretty great, and have (I think) full feature parity across desktop and iPad.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#34

Post by baconandeggs »

dguo wrote: post #11

Whenever I read "charge more," I think of the implicit assumption that service owners want to maximize total profit. While I can understand that desire, there's no law of nature that says we have to act in a profit-maximizing manner. A SaaS service could have a different goal: running a sustainable business that benefits as many people as possible. So they could choose to charge a deliberately low amount such that mo…

Of course! You can choose to charge anything you want, not only for your product but for your salary too! There is no law, man-made or otherwise preventing you to do so. Actually there is a law preventing you to charge too little for your own work but it is what it is.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#35

Post by dwighttk »

> The first thing you’ll notice is that people are much more willing to make a one-time purchase.

This X 100

I would rather pay you $50 with a major update every year that costs $50 than $50/yr subscription. Because if the resubscription comes up and things are a little tight I lose access to the app. Or if I don’t use the app I don’t have to worry about accidentally autoresubscribing

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#36

Post by crooked-v »

cercatrova wrote: post #13
input_sh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ideal world where people have a decent disposable income, those arguments might be true. In the real world, it's not that "people don't want to pay anything", it's that people have a small amount of money to throw at things for a marginally better experience. I sure like keyboard-driven apps, but I'm never going to pay as much as I pay for my entire Internet package for any online service. Hell, all of them I p…

Yes, it seems your comment is reinforcing my point. Consumers like you don't want to pay $30 and that's fine, you are not their target audience. You may like keyboard-driven apps but you don't like them enough to pay $30, so in terms of microeconomics, you don't believe you'll get as much value from the tool as you'd spend. Again, that is fine, because the company should only target customers who do realize your prod…

The comment you're replying to is talking about actual amount of money available for the consumer, not perceived value.

Or, in other words: if I look at an app and decide that it's perfect and I'd really like to have it, but it costs $30/month and I need that money for gas to get to work or to put into my kid's college fund, I'm not going to get it.

The kind of people who post on HN usually have enough money that just $30/month isn't a problem, but what if there's 10 apps that do the same thing? At $300/mo that's now a substantial budget item, and if I have anything serious to save up money for, individual apps are going to be the first thing to go.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#38

Post by cercatrova »

crooked-v wrote: post #36
cercatrova wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it seems your comment is reinforcing my point. Consumers like you don't want to pay $30 and that's fine, you are not their target audience. You may like keyboard-driven apps but you don't like them enough to pay $30, so in terms of microeconomics, you don't believe you'll get as much value from the tool as you'd spend. Again, that is fine, because the company should only target customers who do realize your prod…

The comment you're replying to is talking about actual amount of money available for the consumer, not perceived value. Or, in other words: if I look at an app and decide that it's perfect and I'd really like to have it, but it costs $30/month and I need that money for gas to get to work or to put into my kid's college fund, I'm not going to get it. The kind of people who post on HN usually have enough money that jus…

Perceived value and realization of that value are the same thing to the vendor. If you don't buy, then it doesn't really matter to those who sell. If it does, then there may be some price stratification they could do to capture that value, but it might be best to not target price-conscious customers at all, due to their tendency to be a larger support concern than those who are price-invariant; they are not worth the money they bring in.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#39

Post by crooked-v »

valuearb wrote: post #23

The higher revenues for onetime purchase show the weakness of subscriptions vs the old upgrade model, and I wish Apple would understand it. Subscriptions carry the fear of paying for something you won’t be using, or being nickel and dimed for years on end. Upgrades are a much simpler purchase decision. Am I using the app? Is it offering a good value? Does the upgrade provide new features I want or need at a reasonabl…

Easy upgrades are already a thing, though... just gate new functionality behind IAP, at a low cost per set of related features. Maybe toss in any general quality-of-life improvements as part of the free functionality, too. Call it the "Paradox DLC" model.

Re: Charge more for app subscriptions

#40

Post by makecheck »

Until it stops clearly rewarding scammers, I cannot support subscriptions in any way. From the very start, these criminals figured out some great ways to trick people into auto-renewing subscriptions at exorbitant rates for garbage apps [1]. I especially love how they reached the “Top Grossing” lists (I sure never have...must be nice to not have any morals).

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/sneaky-subscriptions-are-p...

Also, I just plain want to make things that lots of people can enjoy. Subscriptions certainly limit your audience so why is that better (and why should that be the only option or even the preferred one?).

I know developers who asked for this in 2007 but can we please have “free trial, pay at end of trial” and “paid major upgrades” as standard, store-supported options, at long last? There was never anything wrong with these models and they are also great ways to make a living.

Post reply on HN