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

41–50 of 121 posts

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#41

Post by icebraining »

earl wrote: post #4
andrewfelix wrote: post #3

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…

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 did. So their price is irrelevant to this discussion.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#42

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

#43

Post by brey »

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'.

I buy a lot more pens than suits. it's worth optimising cost on regular purchases far more than on very infrequent payments.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#44

Post by [deleted] »

jwr wrote: post #34
suresk wrote: post #24

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 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…

[deleted]

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#45

Post by icebraining »

jwr wrote: post #34
suresk wrote: post #24

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 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…

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.

Why?

    ssh othermachine 'pbpaste' | pbcopy
Bind that to a launcher and/or key shortcut. Instant shared clipboard!

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#46

Post by wccrawford »

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…

I still don't get why you keep saying, "I thought I had a good relationship with him". Because he won't support your charity, he's suddenly not your friend? You think you can just milk him for money any time you feel like it?

Did you ever stop to think that he only cut you the check because you were guilt-tripping him and he was thinking, "I thought I had a good relationship with this guy, but here he is shaking me down for money"?

Stop and take a look at things from the other side before you accuse the person of being a bad friend. It's rarely so simple that it only has 1 side.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#47

Post by wccrawford »

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. $25 per computer? And his reason is that he wants to pay his developers well? That's a stupid reason. He should be looking for market equilibrium instead, then. He should be looking for the point where he makes the most money, instead of just picking a price and sticking to it. Even in a professional setup I would choose Synergy over his price, despite the manual setup (took me like 10 minutes last time) and lack of file sharing (the drives are network shared anyhow in any situation I've been in).

Also, if the claims of his page are true, then support cost should be nearly nil. He claims the thing automatically sets itself up, including monitor configuration. But if it fails to do that and you need support, that's even worse than not having it be automatic in the first place. If he's really having so many support tickets about it, it's not worth the money anyhow.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#48

Post by tankenmate »

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] fix grammar

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#49

Post by jwr »

icebraining wrote: post #45
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…

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. Why? ssh othermachine 'pbpaste' | pbcopy Bind that to a launcher and/or key shortcut. Instant shared clipboard!

It's cool, but it's another thing one has to do beyond cmd-C. Why not just have a proper shared clipboard plus keyboard/mouse sharing in a multi-computer, multi-monitor setup?

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#50

Post by eftpotrm »

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, not transformative. Could I be persuaded to pay for a better version? Sure, but only so much. Elasticity of demand as highlighted in the article only goes so far; ultimately there will be a ceiling price above which your revenue falls.

It's a gadget, not a core tool, and (IMHO) needs to be priced at the 'impulse buy' level. $25 / machine is enough to make people think (even if it's a tiny fraction of total system cost) and you're suddenly out of impulse and into avoidance.

Post reply on HN