"beautifully designed", "good looking", and "easy to use" are three very different things. "Beautifully designed" is not important to most users unless they ge

"beautifully designed", "good looking", and "easy to use" are three very different things. "Beautifully designed" is not important to most users unless they get the source code and need to make changes or enhancements. "Good looking" is nice, but hard to define depending on what kind of application it is, especially on Linux. What does it mean for a server daemon to be "good looking"? What does it mean for a command line tool to be "good looking"? "Easy to use" is very important to most users, but is also rather subjective depending on individual user preferences and experience level. For example, I think vim and emacs are both "easy to use" because I have years of experience using both for various tasks. YMMV. Most users value utility, "easy to use", and "good price" when it comes to paid software: 1) Utility is essential because if the sofware is not useful then what is it good for? 2) "Easy to use" is important, but subjective. Know your intended audience and design to meet their needs. Seek user feedback early and often to tailor your design to match the user's expected ideas of "easy to use". 3) "Good price" varies based on the user expectation and the value proposition that you offer. If the software is extremely useful (high utility) and easy enough to use, users will pay for it. Ask yourself "What does my software offer that is worth paying for?"