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

We're not paying enough for apps

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#101

Post by wccrawford »

tankenmate wrote: post #48
wccrawford wrote: post #47

The title doesn't match the content at all. The content is correct in that pricing apps is complicated and there are factors that people don't often consider. And that support costs should be a factor. But nowhere does it prove the should be paying more . Maybe the developers could charge more, but it doesn't even prove they should do that. It just opens up the possibility. And I think that ShareMouse is overpriced.…

One of the major points raised is that pricing is largely elastic; i.e. raising or lowering your prices doesn't affect revenue. This may mean in some circumstances the correct price is the one that is so high that it leads to just one customer. If it is the case that the pricing for this product is highly / almost completely elastic then a high price makes perfect sense. Just look at Apple's pricing strategies. [Edit…

No, it said that for some products, the pricing was elastic. And under those circumstances, it still might not make sense to charge as much as you can. Even though you avoid support costs like that, it means fewer people are using and talking about your product. If people aren't telling their friends, you're missing out on a lot of free advertising.

There's a lot that goes into pricing, and most of it is not obvious at all.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#102

Post by [deleted] »

erichocean wrote: post #37
gigantor wrote: post #6

This concept points to one of Robert Cialdini's laws of influence: One is far more likely to drive all over around town to save 50 cents in the cost of a $2 pen than spend a few seconds to negotiate 50 cents from a $400 suit, even though the savings are exactly the same. You nickel and dime far less when you perceive the price to be 'not cheap'.

Negotiating 50 cents off a $400 suit just makes you look like a dick. So while the "savings" might be the same, the personal cost is a lot higher on the $400 suit.

[deleted]

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#103

Post by Czarnian »

chime wrote: 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 just released my first iPhone app: http://www.wrestlingscorecard.com and priced it at $4.99 ($1 more than the other app on the app store.) I set the price point based on what I thought the app was worth, not on an expectation of sales. I haven't received enough reviews or ratings to show on iTunes, but the feedback I've gotten has been mostly positive. Even the complaints have been extraordinarily polite.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#104

Post by ScottBurson »

wallflower wrote: post #11
pagekalisedown wrote: post #8

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…

Having been on the other side of a similar situation I can only echo jacquesm's comments. You made the choice to take on this fundraising obligation. You didn't ask this man first to see if he would commit to putting in some amount of money. You can't unilaterally obligate him to do so.

In my own situation, which did involve TNT, I found myself rather skeptical, if not cynical, about the Big Cancer Research Establishment. I think it exists primarily as a self-preserving bureaucracy and does precious little actual research. (I could be wrong; I haven't really looked into it.) Under the circumstances, I nonetheless gave an amount which I thought was generous (and which was larger than $10). It was still received as inadequate. This did not dispose me to be generous with similar requests in the future.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#105

Post by dkersten »

jacquesm wrote: post #40
wallflower wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The decision to sign up for an obligation of $4000 was yours, not your neighbors. He gave you $10, which is $10 more than he was obliged to give you. Just like in any MLM scheme your ability to 'work' the people close to you is what allowed you to sign up for the program in the first place. It is almost as though you felt that your neighbor was obliged to give you a certain amount based on your perception of your rel…

Agreed. A common thing here is sponsored parachute jumps for charity. I flat out refuse to give any money to them regardless of how much I can afford it or how well I know the person. I'd much rather donate directluy to the charity where ill know that they get it all instead of a large portion subsidizing someone's parachute jump. I feel is dishonest saying you're doing it for charity yet pay for it out of the sponsorship money. On the other hand if someone I know were to ask me for money to do a parachute jump, Id happily give it to them if I have it. I just feel like Im being tricked otherwise.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#106

Post by Czarnian »

bartelsmedia wrote: post #81
eftpotrm wrote: post #50

I confess I actually sympathise with him. At the core his point strikes me as inane - that he won't spend a tiny fraction of the cost of his other equipment to solve a problem, that he clearly underprices his time - but still, the pricing strategy here sounds flawed. I use Synergy, too; I'm all Windows so Mac-compatibility isn't an issue, but it's a nice program. Note nice though. Not deal-breaker , not revolutionary…

> $25/machine is enough to make people think and you're suddenly out of impulse. And this is ABSOLUTELY intentional. We do NOT want impulse purchases. We don't believe that it is ethical to lure/seduce users to rush to their credit cards. We don't believe that it is for any good if people buy something and then perhaps realize that they don't need it, are not able to use it properly and waste everybody's time in supp…

Similarly, I have a friend who is in the comic book industry. When he does signings, he brings a bunch of his original work (covers, pages, etc.) with him to sell. He has about 5-10 pieces that he prices at 10x the similar pieces. One time I asked him why cover x was so much more expensive than cover y from the same series.

He said that he's particularly proud of those pieces and that price pretty much guarantees that whoever buys it will take care of it. They'll put it in a proper frame and display it somewhere where it can be appreciated. As opposed to the less expensive pieces which may go in a sleeve and put on a shelf.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#107

Post by colomon »

eftpotrm wrote: post #50

I confess I actually sympathise with him. At the core his point strikes me as inane - that he won't spend a tiny fraction of the cost of his other equipment to solve a problem, that he clearly underprices his time - but still, the pricing strategy here sounds flawed. I use Synergy, too; I'm all Windows so Mac-compatibility isn't an issue, but it's a nice program. Note nice though. Not deal-breaker , not revolutionary…

I've been a Synergy user several times in the past, and it always seemed great for the first few days and then descended into annoying bugs. (No connection this morning for no apparent reason. Or my mouse gets trapped on one system once or twice a day.)

On the one hand, my notion of how much software should cost says $50 for a Synergy clone is insanely expensive. But if I think of the benefit received, I've got to say that a Synergy clone which Just Works probably is easily worth $50.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#108

Post by jwr »

bartelsmedia wrote: post #36
jwr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it more than a little odd. I've just bought the app (two computers), because it's something I've been looking for for a long time. I'd pay just for the shared clipboard feature. I can't count the number of times I had to copy a URL into a file on Dropbox, or Notational Velocity, just to be able to paste it into an E-mail being written on my laptop right next to my main machine. Spending $50 saves me a lot of t…

Thank you for your support. > I also hope that [..] the company won't feel a need to diverge into multiple half-baked products. You bet. Since 1998, we have a small set of well-maintained software products. ShareMouse is not a quick shot. We are here for the long run.

So, having used the software for a couple of hours, I've found at least three problems/bugs. Now we're going to see whether the price is justified and whether we indeed pay for support :-)

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#109

Post by dkersten »

ScottBurson wrote: post #104
wallflower wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Having been on the other side of a similar situation I can only echo jacquesm's comments. You made the choice to take on this fundraising obligation. You didn't ask this man first to see if he would commit to putting in some amount of money. You can't unilaterally obligate him to do so. In my own situation, which did involve TNT, I found myself rather skeptical, if not cynical, about the Big Cancer Research Establish…

I remember reading that the American Cancer Society is the richest non-profit organisation in the country and that the top X people are paid a LOT of money.

I don't care enough to look up citations to back that up though, if anyone is interested I'd suggest going on Google and looking into it for yourself.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#110

Post by dkersten »

icebraining wrote: post #41
earl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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'd say a specialized application like that provides well below 1.5% of the value that two Macbooks provide. But even if it wasn't: when CBS replaced my PC with a MacBook, giving me two-Mac setup He didn't pay for the Macbooks, his employer…

Then maybe he should ask his employer to pay the $50 too.
Post reply on HN