Live data from Hacker News

We're not paying enough for apps

news.cnet.com

11–20 of 121 posts

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at a software company. One of my friends there adamantly refuses to pay for software (he is still waiting for a proper unlock for the iPhone 4S). Talking with him about paying for software (yes, reminding him that his salary comes from people paying for software) reminds me of talking with my Republican-to-the-core friend about Global Warming. He just refuses to budge on his "values". I remember once doing a c…

I don't understand your argument about the $10 check. Sounds like you're looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Going completely OT here - but let me explain the complete context of why $10 was not a generous donation:

The event was done through Team-in-Training. Team-in-Training is an organization that raises funds for cancer research. To raise funds, they help individuals train for an endurance event like a marathon/triathlon. Over 80% have never done an endurance event before. The training is fairly intense and lasts three to four months.

The hard part about Team-in-Training is not the training, however. It is the fundraising. You actually sign a document - if you do not officially withdraw by a certain time, usually several weeks after training starts - that your credit card will be charged for the balance of your minimum fundraising obligation (whatever you do not raise).

For my event, there was a minimum fundraising obligation of almost $4,000. This was an order of magnitude and then some more than I've ever raised for any charity prior.

My argument about the $10 check was that I thought I had a good relationship with my parent's neighbor and that he would recognize the importance of what I was trying to do (personal growth and all that) and help support me (it is all 100% tax deductible) with a $25 or $50 donation.

As it turns out, going back to the idea of giving money as "free speech", the people who gave the most usually had a direct connection to leukemia or lymphoma in their family. And they wanted to support me in memory of their loved ones. It wasn't about me, it was more about them (and usually I didn't know that there was a connection until afterwards). As for my parent's neighbor with the $10 check, he didn't care for the cause (even though he is in that field) or, more importantly, for me and what I was trying to overcome/conquer/do/accomplish. It hurt but I eventually got over it. I know that getting asked for money is hard - but asking people for money is harder (you're putting yourself out there).

The triathlon was a life-changing experience. I ended up raising almost $6,000. I highly recommend TNT to anyone I encounter who ever says "I wish I could run a marathon" or "I can't swim so I can't do a triathlon" or "I'm in a rut" (marathons are their most popular event, by far).

http://teamintraining.org/

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#12
While revenues may be the same between a $9.99 and $0.99 price point on a high quality app, I can't help but feel that the $0.99 price point will generate more money over time. If more people try it out and like it, they'll tell more people over time.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#13

He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument. On the developer side pricing this kind of consumer software per-device seems like poor marketing. It's unnecessarily reminding every potential customer about incremental cost. It also anchors the price incorrectly: "this software is worth $24.95, but you'll need to pay $49.90 to use it." An unlimi…

> He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument.

Even if you want, need and can, doesn't mean you should.

Personal purchases are almost never about economy but always about psychology. You buy to feel good afterwards. If high price spoils the pleasure for you then you are better off not buying even if you need, want and can afford.

Similarly low price or other circumstances like service or affiliation of the seller can spoil pleasure for some.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#14
> Rafe reviews mobile apps and products for fun, and picks startups apart when he gets bored.

The classic idea of how easy it is to criticize someone's work without having a full appreciation of how hard it is to do the work (because he does not do it himself)

It is one thing to write about a startup, another thing to build a product/build a customer base.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#15
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The author's argument is nullified by this statement: "I still won't pay $50 for a nice-to-have utility"

The author has what looks like two mac laptops plus an external monitor. At least one of the macbooks is a macbook pro from the image in the article, so conservatively $3.5K in hardware? And $50 -- less than 1.5% of hardware price -- is too much money! I understand people have been conditioned to think software should be free, but getting hung up over $50 to fix what sounds like a significant hassle seems dumb. The a…

> $24.90 per computer, when the software is literally useless without two computers, should be $50 per pair + $24.90 for 3rd, 4th, etc.

Uhm, but the price is just that as you said: 2 x $24.90 = $49.80 which makes around $50 per pair.

The decision to sell individual licenses is made because it makes it easier to offer add-on licenses which you can conviniently add later at any time. I agree though, that we may need to improve how to communicate it.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#16
Those examples of elastic pricing are for consumer purchases (e.g. games).

The app in question is free for home use; but paid for corporate. Corporate customers have an unbelievably different concept of "expensive" from you and me.

I experimented with different prices for a corporate product, and found charging too little or too much reduced profits. (Sadly, this experiment seriously irritated at least one developer. Who knows, maybe a cheaper price would have lead to greater volume in the long-term.) I would love to price by customer (price discrimination), so corporates pay what suits them, and individual developers/small businesses pay what's reasonable for them. The standard approach is to have extra features in the "Enterprise" version, but I haven't found a way to make this work for me. Anyway... I'd rather everyone enjoy all features; not have version-config complexity; and get feedback/bug reports from everyone.

{rant: "Enterprise customers are an unbelievable pain. They take weeks to answer the simplest questions, they misunderstand, miscommunicate, make unfathomable mistakes, they have to go through Legal, Licensing, Management. And they tend to be discourteous, seemingly without realizing it. Their money - and they will spend more than you could realistically imagine - isn't worth it."}

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#17

While revenues may be the same between a $9.99 and $0.99 price point on a high quality app, I can't help but feel that the $0.99 price point will generate more money over time. If more people try it out and like it, they'll tell more people over time.

We doubt it because it is a niche market, not a mass market.

Additionally, as said in the article, the support load increases and the "quality" of support inquiries is affected by the app price.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your argument about the $10 check. Sounds like you're looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Going completely OT here - but let me explain the complete context of why $10 was not a generous donation: The event was done through Team-in-Training. Team-in-Training is an organization that raises funds for cancer research. To raise funds, they help individuals train for an endurance event like a marathon/triathlon. Over 80% have never done an endurance event before. The training is fairly intense and lasts three…

This sounds like quite an odd way to raise money, and I too would be much more hesitant to giving money to this situation rather than straight out to a charity. I do not see what helping someone get fit has to do with curing cancer. I think you need to take that into consideration when judging someones donation.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#19
post #9

I've had the exact same experience with respect to my iOS app: https://zetabee.com/tip-of-my-tongue/ No matter what price ($0.99 - $9.99) I set, I make the same gross revenue. Reviews tend to be nicer when people buy it for $2.99 - $4.99.

I too have found this, and thought it was very weird. I get a lot of emails from people using my apps (I put a highly visible email button for people to get in contact with me with problems of suggestions), and welcome not getting as many emails with the more expensive version.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your argument about the $10 check. Sounds like you're looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Going completely OT here - but let me explain the complete context of why $10 was not a generous donation: The event was done through Team-in-Training. Team-in-Training is an organization that raises funds for cancer research. To raise funds, they help individuals train for an endurance event like a marathon/triathlon. Over 80% have never done an endurance event before. The training is fairly intense and lasts three…

I don't think page was saying that $10 is a generous donation, just that it's >$0. There are a lot of people who don't give a lot to charity, or are uncomfortable putting $$ amounts on relationships/friendships/etc.
Post reply on HN