6 ms·

Used this service last year, and it was insanely outdated, glad to see they rebuilt for the ground up. That being said - $40 a year is obscene for what they of

by HNcow 11y ago

Used this service last year, and it was insanely outdated, glad to see they rebuilt for the ground up. That being said - $40 a year is obscene for what they offer IMO. Luckily I am able to use basic without needed the extra features. I'd love to pay to support this product, but probably not more than $10 a year. Call me cheap, but this is a nice to have, and competes with free services such as Google Keep.

jcrben 11y ago
You're talking about a service which is theoretically used every day to help you run your life, and you think $40/year is expensive? In my experience, even my poorer friends routinely spend that at a bar or a restaurant. I've spent lots on various GTD apps, but lately settled on facilethings.com which is focused on the GTD workflow. I pay around $100/year.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  It's a shinier version of a tasks function available in every phone for $0.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- HNcow 11y ago
  That would be a great point if it wasn't competing in a marketplace with other products. None of those pro features make me go "wow, this saves me so much time" compared to other offerings. My argument isn't that paying $40 for software a year is obscene, it's that this particular feature set in the competitive space is not worth $40 to me. And correct me if I'm wrong, but if I actually wanted to use these features with my girlfriend, would we not have to both spend $40?
  - amazingman 11y ago
    >My argument isn't that paying $40 for software a year is obscene, it's that this particular feature set in the competitive space is not worth $40 to me. That's not what you said, though. It was your argument, then you realized you were overstating your case. Why not just say so?
    - HNcow 11y ago
      It literally is what I said. I'm unsure what you're reading. "$40 a year is obscene for what they offer IMO". Please feel free to show me the exact time I said "Paying $40 a year for any type of software is ridiculous".
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Task warrior costs nothing. And does a whole lot too.
- tdkl 11y ago
  Todoist is half of that price and basically can be used daily without notifications and comments for free.
cdelsolar 11y ago
$40 per year is OBSCENE???
- echelon 11y ago
  Speaking personally, it isn't something I would be willing to spend. It's within my budget, but I've never liked the thought of software as a service for something that doesn't feel like a service. No ill will to the developer, of course. I'll continue to use the original app.
  - brandon272 11y ago
    The "service" would be continuous product improvements, technical support, hosting of the app and your hosting of your data. I think it's erroneous to seize on the "service" aspect of SaaS. In many cases you are effectively paying a monthly licensing fee for additional functionality within the app.
e40 11y ago
I'm pretty sure last time I renewed it was $24/yr. Sad to see it's gone up. I was on the fence at $24, for how much I use it. At $40 I'll probably look for something else.
- e40 11y ago
  Looks like I use so few features of RTM that I can use Google Keep. I know, however, right after I start using it that Google will kill the project. My Tracks, my favorite Android app, is going away on 4/30/16. Maybe I should just pay the $40/yr. <frustrated>
brandon272 11y ago
There is absolutely nothing "obscene" about $40/year ($3.33/mo) for a premium upgrade on a freemium app that has had thousands of hours and plenty of blood, sweat and tears invested into it. Frankly, I find your comments bordering on disrespectful to the developers and probably depressing to anyone who tries to earn a living developing software.
- AznHisoka 11y ago
  The "thousands of hours and plenty of blood" sadly doesn't factor into whether you should pay $40/year for it. It's about the value it provides and OP thinks it's not worth that much to him. Don't try to make this into a moral argument.
  - brandon272 11y ago
    > The "thousands of hours and plenty of blood" sadly doesn't factor into whether you should pay $40/year for it. It speaks to the breadth and quality of the app. The investment of time matters. I pay for Office 365 and Adobe Creative Cloud and the huge investment of time to create the products within those suites is the basis of the whole product. It's what I'm paying for. It goes without saying that if you do not use this product or have no use for this product, you would not pay anything for it, much less $40 a year. But if you are an actual user of this product and it provides value to you, it is simply ludicrous to say that a $3/mo. commitment to it is "obscene".
    - mistermann 11y ago
      They might make more $ if they had some sort of a tiered pricing model, $40 is "too much" for me to spend on a TODO list as well.
      - brandon272 11y ago
        Perhaps you're right. From my perspective, $3/month just seems fairly inconsequential to me if it's a good app and I use it frequently.
threatofrain 11y ago
$40 yearly is around the paid tier of other like apps, such as Todoist ($30 yearly) or Wunderlist ($50 yearly). While the price may be high, saying it's obscene is an exaggeration of the strength of your case.

by HNcow 11y ago

jcrben 11y ago

You're talking about a service which is theoretically used every day to help you run your life, and you think $40/year is expensive? In my experience, even my poorer friends routinely spend that at a bar or a restaurant. I've spent lots on various GTD apps, but lately settled on facilethings.com which is focused on the GTD workflow. I pay around $100/year.

Spooky23 11y ago
It's a shinier version of a tasks function available in every phone for $0.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
HNcow 11y ago
That would be a great point if it wasn't competing in a marketplace with other products. None of those pro features make me go "wow, this saves me so much time" compared to other offerings. My argument isn't that paying $40 for software a year is obscene, it's that this particular feature set in the competitive space is not worth $40 to me. And correct me if I'm wrong, but if I actually wanted to use these features with my girlfriend, would we not have to both spend $40?
- amazingman 11y ago
  >My argument isn't that paying $40 for software a year is obscene, it's that this particular feature set in the competitive space is not worth $40 to me. That's not what you said, though. It was your argument, then you realized you were overstating your case. Why not just say so?
  - HNcow 11y ago
    It literally is what I said. I'm unsure what you're reading. "$40 a year is obscene for what they offer IMO". Please feel free to show me the exact time I said "Paying $40 a year for any type of software is ridiculous".
ekianjo 11y ago
Task warrior costs nothing. And does a whole lot too.
tdkl 11y ago
Todoist is half of that price and basically can be used daily without notifications and comments for free.

cdelsolar 11y ago

$40 per year is OBSCENE???

echelon 11y ago
Speaking personally, it isn't something I would be willing to spend. It's within my budget, but I've never liked the thought of software as a service for something that doesn't feel like a service. No ill will to the developer, of course. I'll continue to use the original app.
- brandon272 11y ago
  The "service" would be continuous product improvements, technical support, hosting of the app and your hosting of your data. I think it's erroneous to seize on the "service" aspect of SaaS. In many cases you are effectively paying a monthly licensing fee for additional functionality within the app.

e40 11y ago

I'm pretty sure last time I renewed it was $24/yr. Sad to see it's gone up. I was on the fence at $24, for how much I use it. At $40 I'll probably look for something else.

e40 11y ago
Looks like I use so few features of RTM that I can use Google Keep. I know, however, right after I start using it that Google will kill the project. My Tracks, my favorite Android app, is going away on 4/30/16. Maybe I should just pay the $40/yr. <frustrated>

brandon272 11y ago

There is absolutely nothing "obscene" about $40/year ($3.33/mo) for a premium upgrade on a freemium app that has had thousands of hours and plenty of blood, sweat and tears invested into it. Frankly, I find your comments bordering on disrespectful to the developers and probably depressing to anyone who tries to earn a living developing software.

AznHisoka 11y ago
The "thousands of hours and plenty of blood" sadly doesn't factor into whether you should pay $40/year for it. It's about the value it provides and OP thinks it's not worth that much to him. Don't try to make this into a moral argument.
- brandon272 11y ago
  > The "thousands of hours and plenty of blood" sadly doesn't factor into whether you should pay $40/year for it. It speaks to the breadth and quality of the app. The investment of time matters. I pay for Office 365 and Adobe Creative Cloud and the huge investment of time to create the products within those suites is the basis of the whole product. It's what I'm paying for. It goes without saying that if you do not use this product or have no use for this product, you would not pay anything for it, much less $40 a year. But if you are an actual user of this product and it provides value to you, it is simply ludicrous to say that a $3/mo. commitment to it is "obscene".
  - mistermann 11y ago
    They might make more $ if they had some sort of a tiered pricing model, $40 is "too much" for me to spend on a TODO list as well.
    - brandon272 11y ago
      Perhaps you're right. From my perspective, $3/month just seems fairly inconsequential to me if it's a good app and I use it frequently.

threatofrain 11y ago

$40 yearly is around the paid tier of other like apps, such as Todoist ($30 yearly) or Wunderlist ($50 yearly). While the price may be high, saying it's obscene is an exaggeration of the strength of your case.