4 ms·

> seems like it's meant for some sections of first world inhabitants Perfect great! Imagine it’s intentional and a pretty effective way of doing business Now

> seems like it's meant for some sections of first world inhabitants Perfect great! Imagine it’s intentional and a pretty effective way of doing business Now lets just critique why it isn’t a luxury brand

windthrown 7y ago
Expensive luxury prices are fine for certain products but can be detrimental to social and communication tools. I can easily afford this product myself but I don’t want to pay for a social network if a portion of my friends/contacts are priced out.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  Yes, I can understand that. But Facebook's model, for instance, also prices people out. I am entirely unwilling to use Facebook because I consider it far too expensive. True, I'm paying with data rather than cash, but it's still paying. From my point of view, $12.99/mo is actually cheaper (assuming that paying that means I'm not going to be datamined).
  - windthrown 7y ago
    Being “priced out” because you personally value your data more than others is a valid viewpoint, but that’s not the same thing as being priced out because you don’t have money.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      That seems like a difference in viewpoint. I can understand your stance, but I don't share it. To me, being "priced out" means that something costs more than you are willing and able to pay.
      - windthrown 7y ago
        Fair enough. I was just trying say that being unwilling to pay is very different than being unable to pay. Charging a high price for a luxury brand is a fine business model but I wouldn’t consider a product accessible to only some socioeconomic groups to a be a Facebook competitor (as indicated in the article).
wtmt 7y ago
My general observation (anecdotal) is that people are more willing to pay a whole lot more for physical goods than for services (including apps, content and Internet connectivity).
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Depends on the signaling value of the apps and content. Remember that one of the first iPhone apps was one that cost $500 and did nothing but print "I am rich" to the screen.

windthrown 7y ago

Expensive luxury prices are fine for certain products but can be detrimental to social and communication tools. I can easily afford this product myself but I don’t want to pay for a social network if a portion of my friends/contacts are priced out.

JohnFen 7y ago
Yes, I can understand that. But Facebook's model, for instance, also prices people out. I am entirely unwilling to use Facebook because I consider it far too expensive. True, I'm paying with data rather than cash, but it's still paying. From my point of view, $12.99/mo is actually cheaper (assuming that paying that means I'm not going to be datamined).
- windthrown 7y ago
  Being “priced out” because you personally value your data more than others is a valid viewpoint, but that’s not the same thing as being priced out because you don’t have money.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    That seems like a difference in viewpoint. I can understand your stance, but I don't share it. To me, being "priced out" means that something costs more than you are willing and able to pay.
    - windthrown 7y ago
      Fair enough. I was just trying say that being unwilling to pay is very different than being unable to pay. Charging a high price for a luxury brand is a fine business model but I wouldn’t consider a product accessible to only some socioeconomic groups to a be a Facebook competitor (as indicated in the article).

wtmt 7y ago

My general observation (anecdotal) is that people are more willing to pay a whole lot more for physical goods than for services (including apps, content and Internet connectivity).

CamperBob2 7y ago
Depends on the signaling value of the apps and content. Remember that one of the first iPhone apps was one that cost $500 and did nothing but print "I am rich" to the screen.