5 ms·

I think you're on to something, but I think "willingness to spend" might be more accurate than "eager to spend". I don't think it has anything to do with maki

by pohl 16y ago

I think you're on to something, but I think "willingness to spend" might be more accurate than "eager to spend". I don't think it has anything to do with making a hobby out of phone use, either. Plenty of android users are eager to tweak & tinker & install & play around with their phones. They're just tight-fisted with their money, that's all. It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good. Edit: iOS isn't immune to this kind of user, either. Just check out app reviews complaining about having to pay 1/5th what people would spend on coffee for an app. But the existence of tightwads isn't as bad a problem as an absence of paying customers. Android is like The Cheapskate Channel: all tightwads, all the time.

roadnottaken 16y ago
"It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good." I think this is not accurate. I recently purchased the 'Humble Indie Bundle 2' games package which was available for all platforms. This was offered on a 'pay what you want' basis and, after deciding how much you would pay and purchasing the games, they provided some very interesting data: http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg In this case (maybe it's unusual?) Linux users were willing to (voluntarily) fork out more cash for these games than either Windows or Mac users. Perhaps it's because payment wasn't strictly necessary or something, I don't know. I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it.
- pohl 16y ago
  I think those figures just show that the desperate Linux users were grateful for finally getting some mercy sex, as it were.
- roel_v 16y ago
  "I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it." Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux (yes I know about Oracle...), and the spectacular failure of anyone trying to make any (who here remembers Corel's ill-faited WordPerfect for Linux attempt, or Loki games?) are devastating proof that the exact opposite is true. (I guess one could argue that 2$ is the 'reasonable price' for any and all software, but that's just closing one's eyes to the economic realities of the software industry). I mean let's not beat around the bush: Linux users don't pay for software in any sizable amount. Plunking down a few bucks for some games once every decade doesn't count. I like Linux as much as the next guy and I've used it since 1998, but the extremists (at the FSF and elsewhere) that have managed to somehow convince a large enough portion of Linux users that paying for software is somehow a moral issue (I mean, seriously?) have killed 90% of the market in that area. Yes I know that a few companies left and right make a few cents on 'support' and other such frolicking in the margin, but Red Hat is the only one who has managed to make any serious money from Linux itself (as opposed to some others who have found a sound and cheap platform on it to build their product offerings on, those seem to do OK with it)..
  - bryanlarsen 16y ago
    I see it as more like: Linux users will not pay for something when they're forced to pay for something, but when they don't have to pay for something, they're more likely to pay for it than other groups are. (Most still won't if they don't have to, but some will, in a much higher percentage than users from more mainstream OS's). I think they're also much more likely to do without than to pirate. Of course, it's easy for people to rationalize piracy in their head -- it has DRM, it's too expensive, the company is evil, et cetera. But I think Linux users are much more likely than other operating system users to do without rather than pirate. OTOH, OSX users are probably more likely to pay for things than do without. I don't think the Android/iOS ecosystems have shaken out enough to make broad generalizations yet. Myself, I'm definitely a "Linux" style user. I've purchased a few Android apps, but all of them have very usable free editions. Typically, all the paid version does is remove the advertising. Removing advertising is not worth $5 to me, but I sometimes buy the premium version anyways.
- drblast 16y ago
  It's hard to draw conclusions about the desktop Linux market since it's so vanishingly small. I'd happily buy games for Linux. But I don't normally buy games at all; I buy maybe one a year. If I'm a typical case, a company could produce a game and fail financially even though they've captured most of the market.
khill 16y ago
How many Windows users actually buy software at all aside from games? I think most of the commercial software used legitimately by people is either bundled with their PC or paid for by their companies. Since most games don't run on linux, most linux users don't buy software. Yes, Loki tried to make that work but gamers are very fickle and want the latest and greatest games as soon as they are available on Windows. Without direct support from the game producers and release dates/features comparable to the Windows platform, linux games won't take off. It's a chicken-and-egg problem and it won't change since most serious gamers run Windows as well as linux. I ran Windows for years before I switched to linux and I don't think I bought any software for Windows except for games and antivirus updates. I also have an Android phone and have only bought one app in the year I've had it. I only want a smart phone to do certain things - calls, texts, emails, GPS, maps, etc. - and most of that is handled well enough by Google's built-in apps. There are some free apps I use on a regular basis but most are either non-essential or provided by a web site I use (like Last.fm or Pandora). If the non-essential apps cost money, I wouldn't pay for them because I can live without things like wifi analyzers.

by pohl 16y ago

roadnottaken 16y ago

"It seems to be a bit like linux users who — spoiled by the ability to freely download and install something that will do almost anything — wouldn't think to open their wallet to pay for software, no matter how good." I think this is not accurate. I recently purchased the 'Humble Indie Bundle 2' games package which was available for all platforms. This was offered on a 'pay what you want' basis and, after deciding how much you would pay and purchasing the games, they provided some very interesting data: http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Cn5vX.jpg In this case (maybe it's unusual?) Linux users were willing to (voluntarily) fork out more cash for these games than either Windows or Mac users. Perhaps it's because payment wasn't strictly necessary or something, I don't know. I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it.

pohl 16y ago
I think those figures just show that the desperate Linux users were grateful for finally getting some mercy sex, as it were.
roel_v 16y ago
"I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it." Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux (yes I know about Oracle...), and the spectacular failure of anyone trying to make any (who here remembers Corel's ill-faited WordPerfect for Linux attempt, or Loki games?) are devastating proof that the exact opposite is true. (I guess one could argue that 2$ is the 'reasonable price' for any and all software, but that's just closing one's eyes to the economic realities of the software industry). I mean let's not beat around the bush: Linux users don't pay for software in any sizable amount. Plunking down a few bucks for some games once every decade doesn't count. I like Linux as much as the next guy and I've used it since 1998, but the extremists (at the FSF and elsewhere) that have managed to somehow convince a large enough portion of Linux users that paying for software is somehow a moral issue (I mean, seriously?) have killed 90% of the market in that area. Yes I know that a few companies left and right make a few cents on 'support' and other such frolicking in the margin, but Red Hat is the only one who has managed to make any serious money from Linux itself (as opposed to some others who have found a sound and cheap platform on it to build their product offerings on, those seem to do OK with it)..
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  I see it as more like: Linux users will not pay for something when they're forced to pay for something, but when they don't have to pay for something, they're more likely to pay for it than other groups are. (Most still won't if they don't have to, but some will, in a much higher percentage than users from more mainstream OS's). I think they're also much more likely to do without than to pirate. Of course, it's easy for people to rationalize piracy in their head -- it has DRM, it's too expensive, the company is evil, et cetera. But I think Linux users are much more likely than other operating system users to do without rather than pirate. OTOH, OSX users are probably more likely to pay for things than do without. I don't think the Android/iOS ecosystems have shaken out enough to make broad generalizations yet. Myself, I'm definitely a "Linux" style user. I've purchased a few Android apps, but all of them have very usable free editions. Typically, all the paid version does is remove the advertising. Removing advertising is not worth $5 to me, but I sometimes buy the premium version anyways.
drblast 16y ago
It's hard to draw conclusions about the desktop Linux market since it's so vanishingly small. I'd happily buy games for Linux. But I don't normally buy games at all; I buy maybe one a year. If I'm a typical case, a company could produce a game and fail financially even though they've captured most of the market.

khill 16y ago

How many Windows users actually buy software at all aside from games? I think most of the commercial software used legitimately by people is either bundled with their PC or paid for by their companies. Since most games don't run on linux, most linux users don't buy software. Yes, Loki tried to make that work but gamers are very fickle and want the latest and greatest games as soon as they are available on Windows. Without direct support from the game producers and release dates/features comparable to the Windows platform, linux games won't take off. It's a chicken-and-egg problem and it won't change since most serious gamers run Windows as well as linux. I ran Windows for years before I switched to linux and I don't think I bought any software for Windows except for games and antivirus updates. I also have an Android phone and have only bought one app in the year I've had it. I only want a smart phone to do certain things - calls, texts, emails, GPS, maps, etc. - and most of that is handled well enough by Google's built-in apps. There are some free apps I use on a regular basis but most are either non-essential or provided by a web site I use (like Last.fm or Pandora). If the non-essential apps cost money, I wouldn't pay for them because I can live without things like wifi analyzers.