3 ms·

That's just a lot of hand waving. People throw $5 in the busker's hat as they are casually walking by without a second thought. Yet they have a hard time payi

by borplk 8y ago

That's just a lot of hand waving. People throw $5 in the busker's hat as they are casually walking by without a second thought. Yet they have a hard time paying for a $2 android game that keeps them entertained for many hours. Of course it's their money and they have the right to decide how to use it but it's also just plain odd and unfair to suddenly treat $2 as if it was $200 when it comes to software.

watwut 8y ago
1.) The majority of those games won't keep them entertained for hours. Most of them you look at and never open again. 2.) Most of those games simply make waiting for bus or someone bit more fun, but most people are fine actually staring at wall during that time. 3.) This is mostly equivalent of not impulsovely buying anything else - candy every time you are an hour to diner and bit hungry, shiny enclave when you see it etc.
dredmorbius 8y ago
And most people hear or see the busker's act and don't pay. For those who do, the value is immediately cognisible, and, given a cash drop, the transaction is entirely transactional and self-contained. For software, value isn't apparent, the transaction (especially with any ongoing service or billing) is not contained, there is a vastly larger scope of unforseen or unanticipated consequences (both positive and negative, though the latter tend to dominate psychology and behaviour), and more. Though topically similar, the experiences really are not comparable.
- borplk 8y ago
  > For software, value _isn't_ apparrent, the transaction (especially with any ongoing service or billing) is not contained, there is a vastly larger scope of unforseen or unanticipated consequences (both positive and negative, though the latter tend to dominate psychology and behaviour), and more. Again, we're talking about $1 and $2 here not $200 or $2000. My point is the hypocrisy (if we can call it that) of spending that amount or more so easily and mindlessly with so little expectations and suddenly treating it as if it was $200 when it comes to software such that anything less than perfect means the software creator is not worthy of your precious $2 that you often throw at a beggar without a second thought.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    There are tons of really shitty $1 & $2 apps. My assessment costs for those are literally orders of magnitude higher than the price, and yet the price / access barrier, continuity and support risks, etc., literally get in the way of assessing true value. Non-software, or at least bundled-software, example: the local organisation is exploring phone and comms options. Extant system is obsolete and failing. The market price of any given alternative is small, but the cost of sussing out features, suitability, comms link provider integration, and how that might change (POTS, VOIP, wireless, non-dedicated hardware, integrated messaging solutions via smartphone/tablet) opens a whole can of worms. Meanwhile, staff in another department who aren't communicating or comprehending effectively have just purchased a system that manifestly doesn't consider any of this or even meet present needs. Trying to impart on them even the basics of "POTS possibly won't exist in a year or few" has proved a challenge, let alone other organisational comms needs or wants. Acquisition price of the system itself is actually, within a factor of 2-10, a minor concern, quite probably captured in ongoing service fees (or their elimination) in a matter of months. Features offerred by various vendors, their communication of same, guessing future developments, configuration & integration, etc., are vastly more significant. Price alone communicates effectively none of that. Markets are useful for commodity goods, far less so for complex and highly differentiated ones.

by borplk 8y ago

watwut 8y ago

1.) The majority of those games won't keep them entertained for hours. Most of them you look at and never open again. 2.) Most of those games simply make waiting for bus or someone bit more fun, but most people are fine actually staring at wall during that time. 3.) This is mostly equivalent of not impulsovely buying anything else - candy every time you are an hour to diner and bit hungry, shiny enclave when you see it etc.

dredmorbius 8y ago

And most people hear or see the busker's act and don't pay. For those who do, the value is immediately cognisible, and, given a cash drop, the transaction is entirely transactional and self-contained. For software, value isn't apparent, the transaction (especially with any ongoing service or billing) is not contained, there is a vastly larger scope of unforseen or unanticipated consequences (both positive and negative, though the latter tend to dominate psychology and behaviour), and more. Though topically similar, the experiences really are not comparable.

borplk 8y ago
> For software, value _isn't_ apparrent, the transaction (especially with any ongoing service or billing) is not contained, there is a vastly larger scope of unforseen or unanticipated consequences (both positive and negative, though the latter tend to dominate psychology and behaviour), and more. Again, we're talking about $1 and $2 here not $200 or $2000. My point is the hypocrisy (if we can call it that) of spending that amount or more so easily and mindlessly with so little expectations and suddenly treating it as if it was $200 when it comes to software such that anything less than perfect means the software creator is not worthy of your precious $2 that you often throw at a beggar without a second thought.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  There are tons of really shitty $1 & $2 apps. My assessment costs for those are literally orders of magnitude higher than the price, and yet the price / access barrier, continuity and support risks, etc., literally get in the way of assessing true value. Non-software, or at least bundled-software, example: the local organisation is exploring phone and comms options. Extant system is obsolete and failing. The market price of any given alternative is small, but the cost of sussing out features, suitability, comms link provider integration, and how that might change (POTS, VOIP, wireless, non-dedicated hardware, integrated messaging solutions via smartphone/tablet) opens a whole can of worms. Meanwhile, staff in another department who aren't communicating or comprehending effectively have just purchased a system that manifestly doesn't consider any of this or even meet present needs. Trying to impart on them even the basics of "POTS possibly won't exist in a year or few" has proved a challenge, let alone other organisational comms needs or wants. Acquisition price of the system itself is actually, within a factor of 2-10, a minor concern, quite probably captured in ongoing service fees (or their elimination) in a matter of months. Features offerred by various vendors, their communication of same, guessing future developments, configuration & integration, etc., are vastly more significant. Price alone communicates effectively none of that. Markets are useful for commodity goods, far less so for complex and highly differentiated ones.