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

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#111

Post by droithomme »

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…

Horrible. If I knew donating $10 would get me badmouthed, resented and despised, I'd donate $0 like 99.999% of the people in the world donated to this event.

Also, based on what you say there about how it works, that "charity" is obviously a scam.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#112

Post by adrian201 »

I agree with the author that some apps are overpriced. Case in point, how many people do you know that are running legitimate copies of Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop? For a true bootstrapped entrepreneur - who needs project management, site hosting, graphic design, etc. - it's near impossible to afford “top of the line” products. Instead you're left to use Open Source software that at times can be good (Open Office) or unusable (if you've ever used Fireworks, don't even try to use Gimp on a Mac unless you're masochistic).

You're other option is to become a pirate (ARRhhhhh). Here in NYC, piracy seems to be such a pandemic that they're running Ad campaigns for people to report software piracy at small businesses (https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/add.aspx?src=us).

Here's a business model I've been thinking of that I hope developers will adopt. I call it “Entrepreneur lay-a-way”. Basically if someone is a-self described entrepreneur you give them a full 1-year license to your software for free. At the end of the 1 year you charge that users credit card for the full license plus interest. The thought being if the entrepreneur is successful, in 1 year he'll be able to afford your software with interest. The entrepreneur benefits deferring payment for a year, and can use that money for other purposes (marketing, etc). He can then utilize you're wonderful tool to create value for his users and the world. It's a win-win all around.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#113

Post by adrian201 »

cageface wrote: post #32

But I still wasn't ready to part with my $50 for this little utility when the price point in my head was $0. And when there's so much great stuff in the App Store for $4.99. This is exactly the problem with the app store. People have an idea in their heads of what an app is worth, no matter how much work it took to produce it. Price is completely decoupled from cost and from sales volume. This is like saying a Lambor…

This is like saying a Lamborghini and a Kia should both cost $9999 because they're cars. Ultimately this is going to lead to a ton of low quality junk in the market. A quick perusal of the top 50 selling apps suggests we're already there.

Agreed. The App ecosystem may soon become a race to the bottom.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#114

Post by lukev »

adrian201 wrote: post #112

I agree with the author that some apps are overpriced. Case in point, how many people do you know that are running legitimate copies of Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop? For a true bootstrapped entrepreneur - who needs project management, site hosting, graphic design, etc. - it's near impossible to afford “top of the line” products. Instead you're left to use Open Source software that at times can be good (Open Of…

Unless (as in the majority of cases) the startup fails, in which case you now have an already broke entrepreneur getting a large charge on their credit card, which they probably forgot was coming.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#115

Post by tankenmate »

wccrawford wrote: post #101
tankenmate wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Who care how many people are using your product? The purpose of a business is to make profit for its owners. I'd rather have a business that had one customer that made 10x profit than one that had 100M customers and and made 1x profit.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#116

Post by adrian201 »

lukev wrote: post #114
adrian201 wrote: post #112

I agree with the author that some apps are overpriced. Case in point, how many people do you know that are running legitimate copies of Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop? For a true bootstrapped entrepreneur - who needs project management, site hosting, graphic design, etc. - it's near impossible to afford “top of the line” products. Instead you're left to use Open Source software that at times can be good (Open Of…

Unless (as in the majority of cases) the startup fails, in which case you now have an already broke entrepreneur getting a large charge on their credit card, which they probably forgot was coming.

Haha true. A monthly reminder would be key. Maybe a VC or Angel can chip in to back any defaulted charges. VC/Angels could only allow entrepreneurs to join their "secured" group after they are vetted.

Or maybe this could all be tied to a public profile like AngelList or Facebook, to ensure people aren't gaming the system. I'm just theorizing at this point...

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#117

Post by vpdn »

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.

Not giving a discount of 50cents on the 400$ suit makes the other guy look even more like a dick. So this might be the easiest 50cents you've earned.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#118

Post by sireat »

adrian201 wrote: post #112

I agree with the author that some apps are overpriced. Case in point, how many people do you know that are running legitimate copies of Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop? For a true bootstrapped entrepreneur - who needs project management, site hosting, graphic design, etc. - it's near impossible to afford “top of the line” products. Instead you're left to use Open Source software that at times can be good (Open Of…

Isn't this pretty much what BizSpark from Microsoft does? Your startup gets pretty much full MSDN for $100, then you start paying regular prices.

Disclaimer: haven't used BizSpark personally

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#119

Post by xenonite »

colomon wrote: post #107
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 sa…

this leads to another market strategy:

people build their computer system and habits around Synergy until they get to its nasty bugs.

then they readily move to the better ShareMouse.

Similarly, most people start out with a small and cheap car. Then, for retirement, they buy a Mercedes.

-> First, you are hinged on, then you strive for the better.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#120

Post by msutherl »

dedward wrote: post #65
msutherl wrote: post #23

There's an interesting ethical question here. If you charge more for your app, you may make the same amount of money and save on support costs, but you're also denying less wealthy people access to a good tool. It's much like, for instance, the clothing business. Some low-end luxury brands sell clothing of comparable quality to what mass-market brands offer, but mark up the price. This means that only wealthy people…

ethical? its straightforward free market principles at work. especially if similar quality clothing is available cheaply. finding a way to et people with more money to buy your brand even though its basically the same as the cheap one is just cine if you can do it. ethics only come in when we start talking serious quality of life issues, like healthcare and food.... otherwise its all branding and marketing.

As a designer, I have to object to this way of thinking. Perhaps I should say "ethico-aesthetic" a la Guattari.
Post reply on HN