3 ms·

1] Build software, charge $1,160 too much for it. 2] Wait a while, put it on "sale" for $40, tell everyone they are SAVING THOUSANDS. 3] Profit. If it were r

1] Build software, charge $1,160 too much for it. 2] Wait a while, put it on "sale" for $40, tell everyone they are SAVING THOUSANDS. 3] Profit. If it were really worth $1,200, people would pay $1,200, and they'd charge $1,200. Let me know when Adobe and Autodesk start selling their stuff for $40.

absconditus 16y ago
People do pay $1200 for it. See the bottom of the page here: http://projectmessiah.com/x6/products.html http://projectmessiah.com/x6/products.html The people who are only willing to pay $40 are not the main demographic that messiahStudio is marketed to. I honestly expect a bit more business sense on HN.
phren0logy 16y ago
I have no stake in this, and have not used this software, but consider another option: 1] Build a great piece of software, worth every nickel of $1200. 2] Release it to a crowded field where you are a small fish in a big pond, overshadowed by players like Adobe and Autodesk. 3] Drop the price dramatically and take a hit up front to build your customer base, because you believe in your product. 4] Profit. I have no idea which of these two scenarios is closer to the truth. I have never used this software. I am, however, glad for a world with startups and innovators.
makmanalp 16y ago
Alternative scenario: 1) Build software, charge $1000+ for it, even though it cost you way less 2) Get insane margins. 3) Don't lower your prices ever to reinforce the assumption that it really is worth that much, meanwhile making competitors' products look cheap / worthless. 4) Profit.
georgemcbay 16y ago
Messiah has been around since 1999ish (originally as a plugin for Lightwave), so if that was their plan they certainly work on a very long time scale! Messiah is actually pretty great at what it does though it must be getting squeezed a bit by Blender3D with the strides that (totally free) software has made in usability over the last year or so. I do find it a little bit curious that they (pmG) haven't defined what either their goal is or what the timeframe for meeting the goal is. I doubt they are doing anything underhanded, but if the "goal" is not met in whatever the "timeframe" is, it'll be pretty easy for people to make a case that the whole thing was a PR stunt rigged from the start.. of course, then they'd be on the hook for who knows how many refunds, which doesn't come for free.

absconditus 16y ago

People do pay $1200 for it. See the bottom of the page here: http://projectmessiah.com/x6/products.html http://projectmessiah.com/x6/products.html The people who are only willing to pay $40 are not the main demographic that messiahStudio is marketed to. I honestly expect a bit more business sense on HN.

phren0logy 16y ago

I have no stake in this, and have not used this software, but consider another option: 1] Build a great piece of software, worth every nickel of $1200. 2] Release it to a crowded field where you are a small fish in a big pond, overshadowed by players like Adobe and Autodesk. 3] Drop the price dramatically and take a hit up front to build your customer base, because you believe in your product. 4] Profit. I have no idea which of these two scenarios is closer to the truth. I have never used this software. I am, however, glad for a world with startups and innovators.

makmanalp 16y ago

Alternative scenario: 1) Build software, charge $1000+ for it, even though it cost you way less 2) Get insane margins. 3) Don't lower your prices ever to reinforce the assumption that it really is worth that much, meanwhile making competitors' products look cheap / worthless. 4) Profit.

georgemcbay 16y ago

Messiah has been around since 1999ish (originally as a plugin for Lightwave), so if that was their plan they certainly work on a very long time scale! Messiah is actually pretty great at what it does though it must be getting squeezed a bit by Blender3D with the strides that (totally free) software has made in usability over the last year or so. I do find it a little bit curious that they (pmG) haven't defined what either their goal is or what the timeframe for meeting the goal is. I doubt they are doing anything underhanded, but if the "goal" is not met in whatever the "timeframe" is, it'll be pretty easy for people to make a case that the whole thing was a PR stunt rigged from the start.. of course, then they'd be on the hook for who knows how many refunds, which doesn't come for free.