3 ms·

> 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 un

by 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 Extant system is obsolete and failing.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

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.