The author tries to be a little self-deprecating about it, but basically he's the Starbucks customer who engages the cashier in a long conversation about how the coffee is so expensive at places like this, and he's been meaning to start making his own coffee at home again, and shouldn't they lower their prices?
We're not paying enough for apps
91–100 of 121 posts
Re: We're not paying enough for apps
#92Earlier 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…
"For my event, there was a minimum fundraising obligation of almost $4,000."
Which is to say that the majority of the first $4,000, so 2/3 of your $6,000 went towards paying for your training, not for the charitable cause.
This is why I won't contribute to sponsored parachute jumps, walks in the Andes, cycles across the country or other similar pursuits. If you want a vacation pay for it yourself, then we can talk. $10 was $10 too much.
Re: We're not paying enough for apps
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automatic keyboard sharing is just a small step away from that, but that seems really annoying to me. I'd rather control when I want to share. Why not just have a proper shared clipboard plus keyboard/mouse sharing in a multi-computer, multi-monitor setup? Because if you don't need keyboard/mouse sharing that's just bloat running on your machine, because you become dependent on yet another utility that may be discont…
> can I share only on demand? Yes, you can. > less portable There is a portable option > and it costs $50 that would be better spent on blackjack Oh, we should always listen to such kind of advisers.
There is a portable option
I mean OS portable. I use Windows and Linux, you don't support that.
Oh, we should always listen to such kind of advisers.
I don't mean as an investment, I mean as entertainment. The "blackjack and hookers" is a reference to Futurama: http://youtu.be/z5tZMDBXTRQ
By the way, I'm not saying my solution is better than your application as a whole, far from it. I'm talking about the case where you only need clipboard sharing, which I know is only one of the features of your application.
Re: We're not paying enough for apps
#94He 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…
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…
> He wrote me a tax-deductible check for $10 for my cause. That was the lowest donation out of the many I ended up raising.
Did you happen to peek at his checking account on your way out the door? Maybe he just paid his property taxes earlier that afternoon, or his grandkid's tuition. Perhaps he wholeheartedly approved of your fundraiser but didn't feel like liquidating assets that morning to help you finance it.
Re: We're not paying enough for apps
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
And of course before the app store there was no low quality junk. Frankly the problem with the app store is app discovery (something apple clearly understands). The emphasis is on (a) stuff that makes money, (b) stuff that gets downloaded a lot, (c) stuff that lots of people like. Once you go into niches it's insanely hard to FIND things. And if something looks intriguing but is expensive, there's no free trial mecha…
Before the app store everybody was comfortable with the idea that software was not a generic commodity sold at a fixed price. Discovery is also a big problem in the app store, but it's orthogonal to price expectations.
Discovery of free apps can be accomplished by downloading all of them and finding out which ones (if any) suit you.
This method sucks, but it sucks much less than paying $2 for each of them and finding out which ones (if any) suit you. That's why they don't seem like orthogonal problems to me.
Re: We're not paying enough for apps
#96Earlier 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…
The mind boggles -- does this man not value his free time at all? He continued searching for software to avoid paying the $50.
I understand your reasoning, to a point. But remember that he was previously paying $0 for an open source app that provided mostly the same functionality, and it's a big jump going from nothing to $50. In that situation, I'd probably spend quite a bit of time researching my alternatives so that 1) I didn't have to pay $50 more than I'm used to paying, 2) I don't have to pony up an extra $25 if I add another computer to the mix, 3) I can tell my friends and coworkers about the free alternative so it gains momentum and supplants the pricy version.
The "price/utility" equation is very much at play here. A $50 replacement for a free app better provide an enormous utility to make it worthwhile. There's a certain cross-platform text editor that gets mentioned lots here on HN that I bought because it was very useful to me. "Small" apps like a mouse sharing widget just aren't useful enough to me that I'd be willing to support that price point.
Re: We're not paying enough for apps
#97One buyer arguing with one seller about the pricing of one application does not an interesting article make.
I agree with your general point, but please could we lay off the "does not $X make" snowclone? I think it annoys me more than any other.
Re: We're not paying enough for apps
#98The author tries to be a little self-deprecating about it, but basically he's the Starbucks customer who engages the cashier in a long conversation about how the coffee is so expensive at places like this, and he's been meaning to start making his own coffee at home again, and shouldn't they lower their prices?
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. In the end he doesn't even buy it but wastes hours of his own potentially billable hours on trying alternatives and complaining. He also wastes the developer's time along the way.
Just buy the app if you like it. Put your money where your mouth is.
Re: We're not paying enough for apps
#99The author tries to be a little self-deprecating about it, but basically he's the Starbucks customer who engages the cashier in a long conversation about how the coffee is so expensive at places like this, and he's been meaning to start making his own coffee at home again, and shouldn't they lower their prices?
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. In the end he doesn't even buy it but wastes hours of his own potentially billable hours on trying alternatives and complaining. He also wastes the developer's time along the way. Just buy the app if you like it. Put your money where your mouth is.
In fact I really enjoyed the discussion with Rafe.
I believe, that our pricing model was just the trigger for him to reflect on software pricing in general. It certainly isn't his everyday purchase decisioning scheme. :)
Pricing really is a very tricky thing. Especially for software where there is no cost of distribution. Users have to realize that there are a lot more factors that need to be taken into account than just development or delivery cost.
Re: We're not paying enough for apps
#100But 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…
And of course before the app store there was no low quality junk. Frankly the problem with the app store is app discovery (something apple clearly understands). The emphasis is on (a) stuff that makes money, (b) stuff that gets downloaded a lot, (c) stuff that lots of people like. Once you go into niches it's insanely hard to FIND things. And if something looks intriguing but is expensive, there's no free trial mecha…
[deleted]