5 ms·

Seems cool - I am going to download now and try it out. Tip: I suggest removing the 'pricing' menu option on the top of the web site. I saw it immediately the

Seems cool - I am going to download now and try it out. Tip: I suggest removing the 'pricing' menu option on the top of the web site. I saw it immediately the first time I went to your site, and I assumed yours was a paid product, so I stopped there and closed the window. It was only when I went back later and scrolled through, I noticed the current version is free for now. Removing the 'Pricing' link may make other people stick around longer to take a look...

gschier 10y ago
That's great feedback. The app is (and always will be) free so de-prioritizing the pricing page is probably a good idea :)
- cavemanklaus 10y ago
  I'll add that when I see no Pricing page it causes me suspicion, what's the catch? how am I being dataminded? I'd at the least explain somewhere on the page how pricing works or how this is free and funded.
  - imron 10y ago
    Yep. Developers need to earn money. If I don't see a pricing page I start to wonder about how they are making their money, and more importantly if they have a sustainable business model. I don't want to rely on a tool that then goes out of business.
    - eloisant 10y ago
      Yes, developers need to earn money. I know, I'm one (like probably most users of this software). Sometimes developers release open source software, earn money with a different job and the project doesn't go out of business (because it's not a business). This is something I was used to explain in the 90's, I didn't expect to have to explain it again in 2016. No back to "businesses". When I see a free version and a paid version, and I know the difference, I can decide whether I want to use the free version, pay for the paid version or use neither. However when I see "everything free for now but paid version later, the difference between the 2 unclear", it worries me that there will be some bait-and-switch, and the free version will be gimped or will get ads.
      - imron 10y ago
        > This is something I was used to explain in the 90's, I didn't expect to have to explain it again in 2016. The world, the Internet, and in particular revenue models for software and services have changed significantly since the 90's. If I land on some project's Github page I'm not going to be looking for pricing. If I land on the marketing site for an app I'm going to assume it's a business and look for pricing first. I remember the 90's too. You didn't have half the dark pattern/bait-and-switch/datamining revenue models that are commonly seen these days (and there are enough companies that have left users high and dry at the end of their "incredible journey" that app/business longevity is also a valid concern). And so now, in 2016 I'm more cynical and one of the first things I want to know when I come across a potentially interesting app/product is how they plan to make money off me. If it's all open source, great, say it up front. If it's free with various premium options, fine, say it up front. If it's subscription based service, no problem, say it up front. Just don't hide the pricing page (or the open source branding) from the front of your site, which is the context in which I made my comment.
  - tokenizerrr 10y ago
    The catch is that it's free and open source? At least that's how I usually interpret it, even though Insomnia doesn't seem to be open source (disappointing).
- supersan 10y ago
  No, but i think you should leave it there. Pricing should be upfront otherwise it creates suspicion and distrust.
  - newscracker 10y ago
    It could be prominently mentioned as free on the homepage instead and avoid making users navigate pages to find information. Not like "download free for <platform>" (as it is now on this site), but as "free to use, download for <platform>" or something similar.
imron 10y ago
Conversely, pricing is one of the first things I look for (on the assumption that good tools cost money but provide value). If you're always going to have a free version, great put that on the pricing page along with any premium options, but don't make me go hunting through your site to find what paid options you have.
- cyberferret 10y ago
  Just to clarify my position - I run for profit web apps too, and have absolutely no objection to any developer putting a price on their products or services. It is just that in this circumstance, I am already a happy user of the (free) Postman API testing app, and whenever I see anyone talk about a new API testing tool, I am keen to check it out. However, if the other product is a 'paid for' product, then it has to be VERY compelling indeed to make me switch from the free one I am already using. For instance, I (and many others) think that Paw is worth the licence fee. It sounds a great product and is well worth the money. But for me, I didn't see any solid reason to switch to Paw from Postman unless I came across an absolutely killer feature that I could not live without. In Insomnia's case, I was ready to dismiss it because I read about the simplicity of the interface, and I saw a 'Pricing' link on the web page. I immediately assumed it was a paid licence product, which meant that it immediately fell outside any compelling reason for me to even trial it. Later, when I saw that it was an always free piece of software, it immediately went back on my radar as something I should check out as a possible replacement for Postman. If it is as good as others say, then I do sincerely hope that the author finds some way to monetise it via some sort of Pro subscription etc. in the future. My point is that the presence of a Pricing page (which I admit is one of the first things I look for when I visit any app or service page) could mislead people into thinking it is a strictly paid-for app, when in fact it is not.
- newscracker 10y ago
  I hate it when pricing is not a prominent link on a site's homepage and has to be found through a web search. It always look quite shady, like the enterprise software/services market where "call for pricing" is more common and always seems like an extortion is about to take place. For consumer/small business related apps/services, if I don't see pricing linked or mentioned on the home page, I assume that it is quite expensive and that the developer/company believes the same too, thinking that people will balk on seeing the price and that they can somehow be convinced to sign up first (so they can be marketed to) and then pay what's demanded after reading the long list of features or other fluff they put up.
gschier 10y ago
So I decided to keep the pricing link but add "free" to the download button. I think that's a pretty good balance.
- cyberferret 10y ago
  The "Free Download" thing has been done to death though. It almost always is a guarantee that we can DOWNLOAD the app for 'free' but will have to pay when we want to actually USE the app. I think the best alternative is to put a callout in your header somewhere that says something like "Basic version of Insomnia is free forever". Then retain the Pricing page for people who may be curious about your 'Plus' version.
  - gschier 10y ago
    Ya, I thought about that but decided on the "free download" for now to get it out the door. Definitely agree though.
kovrik 10y ago
Wait, it is free??? Thanks for the comment! Downloading the app!

gschier 10y ago

That's great feedback. The app is (and always will be) free so de-prioritizing the pricing page is probably a good idea :)

cavemanklaus 10y ago
I'll add that when I see no Pricing page it causes me suspicion, what's the catch? how am I being dataminded? I'd at the least explain somewhere on the page how pricing works or how this is free and funded.
- imron 10y ago
  Yep. Developers need to earn money. If I don't see a pricing page I start to wonder about how they are making their money, and more importantly if they have a sustainable business model. I don't want to rely on a tool that then goes out of business.
  - eloisant 10y ago
    Yes, developers need to earn money. I know, I'm one (like probably most users of this software). Sometimes developers release open source software, earn money with a different job and the project doesn't go out of business (because it's not a business). This is something I was used to explain in the 90's, I didn't expect to have to explain it again in 2016. No back to "businesses". When I see a free version and a paid version, and I know the difference, I can decide whether I want to use the free version, pay for the paid version or use neither. However when I see "everything free for now but paid version later, the difference between the 2 unclear", it worries me that there will be some bait-and-switch, and the free version will be gimped or will get ads.
    - imron 10y ago
      > This is something I was used to explain in the 90's, I didn't expect to have to explain it again in 2016. The world, the Internet, and in particular revenue models for software and services have changed significantly since the 90's. If I land on some project's Github page I'm not going to be looking for pricing. If I land on the marketing site for an app I'm going to assume it's a business and look for pricing first. I remember the 90's too. You didn't have half the dark pattern/bait-and-switch/datamining revenue models that are commonly seen these days (and there are enough companies that have left users high and dry at the end of their "incredible journey" that app/business longevity is also a valid concern). And so now, in 2016 I'm more cynical and one of the first things I want to know when I come across a potentially interesting app/product is how they plan to make money off me. If it's all open source, great, say it up front. If it's free with various premium options, fine, say it up front. If it's subscription based service, no problem, say it up front. Just don't hide the pricing page (or the open source branding) from the front of your site, which is the context in which I made my comment.
- tokenizerrr 10y ago
  The catch is that it's free and open source? At least that's how I usually interpret it, even though Insomnia doesn't seem to be open source (disappointing).
supersan 10y ago
No, but i think you should leave it there. Pricing should be upfront otherwise it creates suspicion and distrust.
- newscracker 10y ago
  It could be prominently mentioned as free on the homepage instead and avoid making users navigate pages to find information. Not like "download free for <platform>" (as it is now on this site), but as "free to use, download for <platform>" or something similar.

imron 10y ago

Conversely, pricing is one of the first things I look for (on the assumption that good tools cost money but provide value). If you're always going to have a free version, great put that on the pricing page along with any premium options, but don't make me go hunting through your site to find what paid options you have.

cyberferret 10y ago
Just to clarify my position - I run for profit web apps too, and have absolutely no objection to any developer putting a price on their products or services. It is just that in this circumstance, I am already a happy user of the (free) Postman API testing app, and whenever I see anyone talk about a new API testing tool, I am keen to check it out. However, if the other product is a 'paid for' product, then it has to be VERY compelling indeed to make me switch from the free one I am already using. For instance, I (and many others) think that Paw is worth the licence fee. It sounds a great product and is well worth the money. But for me, I didn't see any solid reason to switch to Paw from Postman unless I came across an absolutely killer feature that I could not live without. In Insomnia's case, I was ready to dismiss it because I read about the simplicity of the interface, and I saw a 'Pricing' link on the web page. I immediately assumed it was a paid licence product, which meant that it immediately fell outside any compelling reason for me to even trial it. Later, when I saw that it was an always free piece of software, it immediately went back on my radar as something I should check out as a possible replacement for Postman. If it is as good as others say, then I do sincerely hope that the author finds some way to monetise it via some sort of Pro subscription etc. in the future. My point is that the presence of a Pricing page (which I admit is one of the first things I look for when I visit any app or service page) could mislead people into thinking it is a strictly paid-for app, when in fact it is not.
newscracker 10y ago
I hate it when pricing is not a prominent link on a site's homepage and has to be found through a web search. It always look quite shady, like the enterprise software/services market where "call for pricing" is more common and always seems like an extortion is about to take place. For consumer/small business related apps/services, if I don't see pricing linked or mentioned on the home page, I assume that it is quite expensive and that the developer/company believes the same too, thinking that people will balk on seeing the price and that they can somehow be convinced to sign up first (so they can be marketed to) and then pay what's demanded after reading the long list of features or other fluff they put up.

gschier 10y ago

So I decided to keep the pricing link but add "free" to the download button. I think that's a pretty good balance.

cyberferret 10y ago
The "Free Download" thing has been done to death though. It almost always is a guarantee that we can DOWNLOAD the app for 'free' but will have to pay when we want to actually USE the app. I think the best alternative is to put a callout in your header somewhere that says something like "Basic version of Insomnia is free forever". Then retain the Pricing page for people who may be curious about your 'Plus' version.
- gschier 10y ago
  Ya, I thought about that but decided on the "free download" for now to get it out the door. Definitely agree though.

kovrik 10y ago

Wait, it is free??? Thanks for the comment! Downloading the app!