41–50 of 77 posts
I wonder what happens when he sells for $0. An infinite number of buyers?
Yep, sometimes thats called piracy too, in case you're wondering...
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4258/saturday-night-live-first-cit...
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4253/saturday-night-live-first-cit...
So, of the people paying $1 for the product, you know that half of them would gladly pay $2? Sounds like it's time for 2 versions of the product : (i) The almost-full-featured version ($1) and (ii) The super-duper gold-plated version ($2). The removed feature doesn't even have to be very useful : You might lose 10% of the $1 value people, but snag 25% of the $2 value people (who just want some justification for payin…
Apple's simple take on this may be revealing: iSomething = $X iSomething+ = $X+100 iSomething++ = $X+200
>> I attached two charts to illustrate that. I recently lowered the price of the iPad app ( http://bit.ly/92xWv1 ) from 5 to 1 Dollars. Try $3. I think it was a coincidence $5 and $1 had the same revenue. The maximum revenue price point should be in between. // guy who studied first year microeconomics.
So, of the people paying $1 for the product, you know that half of them would gladly pay $2? Sounds like it's time for 2 versions of the product : (i) The almost-full-featured version ($1) and (ii) The super-duper gold-plated version ($2). The removed feature doesn't even have to be very useful : You might lose 10% of the $1 value people, but snag 25% of the $2 value people (who just want some justification for payin…
I think that's the future pricing model for a lot of software products. Think of games, for example, where you could sell the basic version for $5, then big chunks of DLC for a few dollars apiece. So you get your game into the hands of anyone willing to pay a small fee, in the hope that those who like it will continue to pay additional small fees for more content.
>> I attached two charts to illustrate that. I recently lowered the price of the iPad app ( http://bit.ly/92xWv1 ) from 5 to 1 Dollars. Try $3. I think it was a coincidence $5 and $1 had the same revenue. The maximum revenue price point should be in between. // guy who studied first year microeconomics.
Not necessarily in between, you'd have to draw a demand curve at various different prices to determine the optimum // guy who is studying economics
So, of the people paying $1 for the product, you know that half of them would gladly pay $2? Sounds like it's time for 2 versions of the product : (i) The almost-full-featured version ($1) and (ii) The super-duper gold-plated version ($2). The removed feature doesn't even have to be very useful : You might lose 10% of the $1 value people, but snag 25% of the $2 value people (who just want some justification for payin…
Joel Spolsky wrote a pretty good piece on capturing the consumer surplus: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's simple take on this may be revealing: iSomething = $X iSomething+ = $X+100 iSomething++ = $X+200
I've always wondered about the sales ratios of iSomething+ versus the other two. It seems to be that most people either want the cheapest, or the best, and that the mid-range exists primarily as a stepping stone to convert the former buyers into the latter.
So, of the people paying $1 for the product, you know that half of them would gladly pay $2? Sounds like it's time for 2 versions of the product : (i) The almost-full-featured version ($1) and (ii) The super-duper gold-plated version ($2). The removed feature doesn't even have to be very useful : You might lose 10% of the $1 value people, but snag 25% of the $2 value people (who just want some justification for payin…