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

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#51

Post by pestaa »

brey wrote: post #43
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.

But you have to negotiate 50c discount on 20+ pens to save the same amount of money compared to a $10 saving off a single purchase.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#52

Post by rtisticrahul »

Nice Article. It is better to have few customers and provide excellent service to them rather than having lot of customers and providing mediocre/bad service. The price point should justify the quality of the software and the support given afterwards.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#53

Post by ctdonath »

wallflower wrote: post #14

> Rafe reviews mobile apps and products for fun, and picks startups apart when he gets bored. The classic idea of how easy it is to criticize someone's work without having a full appreciation of how hard it is to do the work (because he does not do it himself) It is one thing to write about a startup, another thing to build a product/build a customer base.

"the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so." - Ratatouille

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#54

Post by willyt »

bartelsmedia wrote: post #15
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…

> $24.90 per computer, when the software is literally useless without two computers, should be $50 per pair + $24.90 for 3rd, 4th, etc. Uhm, but the price is just that as you said: 2 x $24.90 = $49.80 which makes around $50 per pair. The decision to sell individual licenses is made because it makes it easier to offer add-on licenses which you can conviniently add later at any time. I agree though, that we may need to…

I think he was making the point that you are fighting against psychology with your approach to pricing.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#55

Post by SatvikBeri »

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…

I've often found that journalists place a very low value on their time, possibly since they're paid so little. I had one conversation where I convinced a journalist that this software would save him 7 at least hours and cost $100...to which he responded, "If it's just 7 hours, why would I spend $100?"

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#56

Post by infiniteburp »

scotty79 wrote: post #13
underwater wrote: post #2

He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument. On the developer side pricing this kind of consumer software per-device seems like poor marketing. It's unnecessarily reminding every potential customer about incremental cost. It also anchors the price incorrectly: "this software is worth $24.95, but you'll need to pay $49.90 to use it." An unlimi…

> He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument. Even if you want, need and can, doesn't mean you should. Personal purchases are almost never about economy but always about psychology. You buy to feel good afterwards. If high price spoils the pleasure for you then you are better off not buying even if you need, want and can afford. Similarly lo…

However ... if we adjust prices lower, people buy more. If we set prices higher, people buy less. Sellers price their product to maximize their profits.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#57

Post by siglesias »

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 can vouch for this as well with my app (http://www.teaapp.com )--it appears to be unit price elastic, based on some price experimentation I did on it at launch (varying between $1.99 and $4.99).

In spite of this my intuition tells me to price it at $.99 when Apple features it, and between $1.99 and $2.99 when people are hunting for it.

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#58

Post by Vivtek »

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…

Jacques, it sounds like wallflower already knows all that. The issue is the emotional impact it had (which is in the past), not that wallflower still resents the neighbor.

And that money is weird, on an emotional level. Which it is.

(Not that anything you said here is wrong.)

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#59

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: We're not paying enough for apps

#60

Post by [deleted] »

pagekalisedown wrote: post #8
wallflower wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at a software company. One of my friends there adamantly refuses to pay for software (he is still waiting for a proper unlock for the iPhone 4S). Talking with him about paying for software (yes, reminding him that his salary comes from people paying for software) reminds me of talking with my Republican-to-the-core friend about Global Warming. He just refuses to budge on his "values". I remember once doing a c…

I don't understand your argument about the $10 check. Sounds like you're looking a gift horse in the mouth.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN