21–30 of 121 posts
The article itself doesn't really take that kind of position, it's just a linkbaity title, but gearing up for some moralizing annoyed me.
And it made me read the whole thing, so I guess the joke's on me and I should stop moralizing.
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'.
1. Knowledge: Part of it comes from the bike-shed phenomenon - I know how to clean, I don't know how to apply knock-down texture. So the more I know about something, the less I want to pay for it and consequently, the tougher I bargain. My solution to get a better deal is to simply learn more. I call up contractor A with absolutely no knowledge about how to fix the problem or what costs to expect. I get some idea (and learn industry-wide terminology) and then call contractor B. I use some of my new-found knowledge to show I'm not absolutely clueless. By the time I've called contractor E, I know more about my problem than anyone else, plus I have a good idea of the expected costs.
2. Past relationship: I only go through lots of contractors when I don't already have a good relationship with an existing one. I didn't have to get quotes from five tile installers because I did that three years ago and found a good guy to install tiles at my old house. This time I simply called him up and he gave me a reasonable quote. You could have a past relationship with the fine-suit tailor and don't need to negotiate 50c each time because you know he is already giving you a good deal.
3. Quality: In the end, you pay for quality at a given price point. I don't mind the cleaners missing a spot but I do mind the tile installer messing up a center tile. You don't want to negotiate too hard with the fine-suit tailor because a 1% risk of damaging a $400 suit due to cutting corners is a lot more expensive than 1% risk of damaging a $2 pen for the same reason.
4. Fungibility: All $2 Bic-black pens are same, not all $400 suits are. Same with cleaners vs. tile installers or painters. You do not want to use price as the only negotiation basis when advanced levels of workmanship is involved. Price can be the primary basis when it comes to common objects or services, available in many places.
5. Continued relationship: I don't much care if I buy another $2 pen from the same vendor in the future because there are many good stationery vendors but I'm not going to find another tailor, painter, or tile installer as easily.
6. Negative perception: I don't want higher cost contractors to think I'm a cheapskate who wants a $5 discount on a $8k project because then they will treat me like a cheapskate and will make decisions based primarily on cost-saving instead of the overall value. I don't want the tailor to use cheaper thread or tile-installer to use less thinset just to lower my immediate project cost because we all know this will cost me more in the long run. I don't mind what a stationery vendor does as long as he sells me the cheapest pen in original packaging.
My overall point is that it's not always irrational to find a better deal for cheaper objects than more expensive services.
Do you think it's ethical to exclude lower-income consumers just because it's more convenient for you? If you really believe in what you're doing, wouldn't you want it to be accessible to as many people as possible?
The response from the vendor (about it being hard to make money to pay his developers when selling a fairly niche tool) resonates with me, though. I built a fairly specific-use tool on the side last year and started selling it on the Mac App Store. I found that prices weren't very elastic, and I had to drop the price down to $2 to sell very many copies.
Even then, people think I'm some big company selling this software, when the revenue I generate from it isn't nearly enough to pay my bills, much less hire others to work on it. Even last year when I spent a while in the top 5 in dev tools, I wasn't netting more than $25 per day.
Ultimately, I think the app store concept is really cool and will be a net positive in the long run, but I wonder how many useful tools will fall through the cracks because buyers have been conditioned to think that a $5 app is "expensive", even though it isn't nearly enough to support some tools.
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…
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.
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…
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…
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…
I don't think this is a real issue. Small developers love their apps and want people to have them, but are seldom filthy rich.
The equivalent of luxury goods are the crappy EA Tetris apps that people buy on the App Store for the name alone, and I doubt anyone involved in their production believes in what they do.
On the other hand, I really miss student discounts on the Mac App Store :(
I find it a little odd that he spent so much time haggling over a $50 tool that is obviously providing a lot of value to him. The response from the vendor (about it being hard to make money to pay his developers when selling a fairly niche tool) resonates with me, though. I built a fairly specific-use tool on the side last year and started selling it on the Mac App Store. I found that prices weren't very elastic, and…
I've had apps in the iPad "what's hot" music app list many times but they're still only bringing chicken scratch compared to what I could have made consulting instead. The handful of home runs you hear about obscure the fact that for 99% of us the best way to make money in the app store is to charge by the hour for writing them for someone else.