5 ms·

Perhaps now that we are moving into an age of micropayments the smaller dollar amounts have regained their separation. i.e. a buck vs a fiver.

patio11 17y ago
I understand how someone typing a blog post on their $2,000 Mac while listening to music on their $300 iPod could perhaps think that we are moving into a new age of micropayments because he paid $1 for a fart app on the the $600 iPhone in the pocket of his $100 jeans, but I don't agree with him.
- ohashi 17y ago
  But those are physical products and these are virtual services. In the user's mind there is (or starting to be?) a huge distinction between the two. I am not saying it's right or wrong, but would you agree you see a distinction?
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    "In the user's mind there is (or starting to be?) a huge distinction between the two." Actually, I'd venture to say that the distinction between the two is shrinking, and will continue to do so in the future.
    - ohashi 17y ago
      Why do you think that?
      - jackowayed 17y ago
        Because if you go back, say, 20 years, no one would pay anything that wasn't physical. It just didn't make sense to people back then. There was no reason to. Now computers are so ubiquitous and powerful that people pay for "virtual" things all the time. They pay to download that song off of iTunes. They pay to download that iPhone app. Hell, they pay for "land" in Second Life and "money" in Farmville.
        ohashi 17y ago
        That doesn't mean they see real products and virtual products as equal. It is simply acknowledging that virtual products exist.
        jackowayed 17y ago
        I wasn't saying they see them as equal. I'm saying they see them as more equal than they did when virtual products were seen as totally worthless.
        ohashi 17y ago
        I see your point, I would counter that users almost expect everything for free these days and getting them to pay is harder than it was before, but easier than originally?
- gills 17y ago
  heh...your description of the emo mac dude gave me a laugh, thanks. I'm curious how the same individual might value a subscription to "trendy $100 jeans...as a service", both in utility and price? I think it's been tried with luxury handbags for about $50/month, but I'm too lazy to look up what happened to that business (and my battery is at 3% so I can't look right now).
  - whatusername 17y ago
    http://www.bagborroworsteal.com http://www.bagborroworsteal.com Seems to have been re-branded as Avelle.
  - aaronbrethorst 17y ago
    For starters, $100 jeans are on the low-to-mid-range end of the denim market. $20'ish - el cheapo house brands at Target, Walmart, etc. <$50'ish - Gap, Levi Strauss <$100'ish - Lucky <$200'ish - Diesel, Seven for All Mankind ~$500 - Prada, etc. If you think about what Avelle provides (LHaaS), it's a way for women to accessorize themselves for a big night out in a way far outside of their typical budget. That super-trendy, $1000 Fendi bag won't lend itself well to everyday usage for most people. Those $200 jeans, on the other hand, cannot and will not be worn for that Big Event. Imagine you're going to a cocktail party with a bunch of big-time politicos. If you're a woman, you might rent that Fendi bag from Avelle. No one in their right mind would say to themselves, 'hey, I'll go rent some trendy jeans for tonight's black tie event.' A serious online competitor to those god-awful tux rental shops could be cool, though.
jacquesm 17y ago
Micropayments have been implemented many times in the past but to date nobody has really made a go of it. There are several reasons for this: Micropayment services tend to be wallet oriented, pre-paid and therefore there exists no direct relationship between the merchant and the customer. This relationship is a very important component for the merchant. Micropayment services tend to suffer from a chicken-and-the-egg issue, if not enough sites use a common system then why would a consumer put their money in to that particular wallet. To date, in spite of many 10's of millions of investment money sunk in micropayment systems there has never been a clear winner, the minimum charge seems to be stuck at roughly $.80 which is way too high to qualify as a micropayment, and a merchant would only see a very small fraction of that. To really function a micropayment system would have to be able to seamlessly charge sub-cent amounts and put the majority of that in to the hands of the merchant within two weeks of incurring the charge.
- patio11 17y ago
  This is going a bit off topic, but AdWords is the world's best micropayment solution, and probably killed the need for all others: + It is economical as low as 3 cents an action. + It solved the "Customers hate to make micropurchasing decisions" by moving the payment from the end-user to a business which gets to automate the micropurchasing. + The micropurchases are actually billed macro-scale, so it works on top of our existing payment infrastructure without too many hassles. + You can deploy it anywhere in the world for trivial levels of integration work. (That won't maximize income by a long shot, but you'll start accruing earnings with a quick copy/paste.) + It is almost totally resistant to "steal the content and repost to avoid the pay wall"... well, when it doesn't pay for people to steal the content, but that is another discussion altogether...
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    That's a really interesting viewpoint, I have never seen that articulated before, thank you. You are probably right that adwords / adsense obviates the need for many micropayments, but to truly become a micropayment worthy system there would have to be a much larger degree of transparency. Basically right now you have to assume the middle man isn't taking advantage of your not knowing how much is being paid for your inventory and that is a thing that people are not happy about in general.

patio11 17y ago

I understand how someone typing a blog post on their $2,000 Mac while listening to music on their $300 iPod could perhaps think that we are moving into a new age of micropayments because he paid $1 for a fart app on the the $600 iPhone in the pocket of his $100 jeans, but I don't agree with him.

ohashi 17y ago
But those are physical products and these are virtual services. In the user's mind there is (or starting to be?) a huge distinction between the two. I am not saying it's right or wrong, but would you agree you see a distinction?
- potatolicious 17y ago
  "In the user's mind there is (or starting to be?) a huge distinction between the two." Actually, I'd venture to say that the distinction between the two is shrinking, and will continue to do so in the future.
  - ohashi 17y ago
    Why do you think that?
    - jackowayed 17y ago
      Because if you go back, say, 20 years, no one would pay anything that wasn't physical. It just didn't make sense to people back then. There was no reason to. Now computers are so ubiquitous and powerful that people pay for "virtual" things all the time. They pay to download that song off of iTunes. They pay to download that iPhone app. Hell, they pay for "land" in Second Life and "money" in Farmville.
      - ohashi 17y ago
        That doesn't mean they see real products and virtual products as equal. It is simply acknowledging that virtual products exist.
        jackowayed 17y ago
        I wasn't saying they see them as equal. I'm saying they see them as more equal than they did when virtual products were seen as totally worthless.
        ohashi 17y ago
        I see your point, I would counter that users almost expect everything for free these days and getting them to pay is harder than it was before, but easier than originally?
gills 17y ago
heh...your description of the emo mac dude gave me a laugh, thanks. I'm curious how the same individual might value a subscription to "trendy $100 jeans...as a service", both in utility and price? I think it's been tried with luxury handbags for about $50/month, but I'm too lazy to look up what happened to that business (and my battery is at 3% so I can't look right now).
- whatusername 17y ago
  http://www.bagborroworsteal.com http://www.bagborroworsteal.com Seems to have been re-branded as Avelle.
- aaronbrethorst 17y ago
  For starters, $100 jeans are on the low-to-mid-range end of the denim market. $20'ish - el cheapo house brands at Target, Walmart, etc. <$50'ish - Gap, Levi Strauss <$100'ish - Lucky <$200'ish - Diesel, Seven for All Mankind ~$500 - Prada, etc. If you think about what Avelle provides (LHaaS), it's a way for women to accessorize themselves for a big night out in a way far outside of their typical budget. That super-trendy, $1000 Fendi bag won't lend itself well to everyday usage for most people. Those $200 jeans, on the other hand, cannot and will not be worn for that Big Event. Imagine you're going to a cocktail party with a bunch of big-time politicos. If you're a woman, you might rent that Fendi bag from Avelle. No one in their right mind would say to themselves, 'hey, I'll go rent some trendy jeans for tonight's black tie event.' A serious online competitor to those god-awful tux rental shops could be cool, though.

jacquesm 17y ago

Micropayments have been implemented many times in the past but to date nobody has really made a go of it. There are several reasons for this: Micropayment services tend to be wallet oriented, pre-paid and therefore there exists no direct relationship between the merchant and the customer. This relationship is a very important component for the merchant. Micropayment services tend to suffer from a chicken-and-the-egg issue, if not enough sites use a common system then why would a consumer put their money in to that particular wallet. To date, in spite of many 10's of millions of investment money sunk in micropayment systems there has never been a clear winner, the minimum charge seems to be stuck at roughly $.80 which is way too high to qualify as a micropayment, and a merchant would only see a very small fraction of that. To really function a micropayment system would have to be able to seamlessly charge sub-cent amounts and put the majority of that in to the hands of the merchant within two weeks of incurring the charge.

patio11 17y ago
This is going a bit off topic, but AdWords is the world's best micropayment solution, and probably killed the need for all others: + It is economical as low as 3 cents an action. + It solved the "Customers hate to make micropurchasing decisions" by moving the payment from the end-user to a business which gets to automate the micropurchasing. + The micropurchases are actually billed macro-scale, so it works on top of our existing payment infrastructure without too many hassles. + You can deploy it anywhere in the world for trivial levels of integration work. (That won't maximize income by a long shot, but you'll start accruing earnings with a quick copy/paste.) + It is almost totally resistant to "steal the content and repost to avoid the pay wall"... well, when it doesn't pay for people to steal the content, but that is another discussion altogether...
- jacquesm 17y ago
  That's a really interesting viewpoint, I have never seen that articulated before, thank you. You are probably right that adwords / adsense obviates the need for many micropayments, but to truly become a micropayment worthy system there would have to be a much larger degree of transparency. Basically right now you have to assume the middle man isn't taking advantage of your not knowing how much is being paid for your inventory and that is a thing that people are not happy about in general.