5 ms·

Parent never said that. Charging less helps with the goal of having a sustainable business that benefits as many people as possible because it lowers the barrie

Parent never said that. Charging less helps with the goal of having a sustainable business that benefits as many people as possible because it lowers the barrier of entry.

zepto 6y ago
Maybe, but it’s also possible that if you charge too little, people subscribe but don’t benefit, because they don’t use the service much. Subscribing doesn’t necessarily imply benefitting, but the higher the price, the more correlated these are likely to be.
- Kaze404 6y ago
  If people don't use your product if they don't have the pressure of sunken cost, then maybe they're not really benefitting either way.
  - zepto 6y ago
    The whole point of subscriptions is that they aren’t sunken cost.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      If I subscribe to something for a month, and then feel compelled to use it that month instead of some better tool because I paid for it, I would say that's a sunken cost. A time limited one, but still there.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Technically true, but seems like an exotic case, and proves the point that sunk cost isn’t a substantial issue here.
        Shared404 6y ago
        >Seems like an exotic case, I've worked with enough people who used adobe because "I've already payed for this month, so I have to use this" that I'm not sure it's that exotic. And while sunk cost may not be a huge issue, it's definitely still there. I'm not going to make any sort of comment on anything else in this thread, because I don't really know what I'm talking about. However, I don't see how it's possible for someone to derive more benefit from an app overall by paying a higher subscription. Your subscribers might correlate better with people who are benefiting, but for an individual, either they [Pay less and have the same amount of possible benefit] or [Pay more and have the same amount of possible benefit]. How does it work out that they get better value from the second option?
    - Kaze404 6y ago
      For people with disposable income, sure. For the people parent is talking about, they definitely are.

Parent never said that. Charging less helps with the goal of having a sustainable business that benefits as many people as possible because it lowers the barrier of entry.

zepto 6y ago

Maybe, but it’s also possible that if you charge too little, people subscribe but don’t benefit, because they don’t use the service much. Subscribing doesn’t necessarily imply benefitting, but the higher the price, the more correlated these are likely to be.

Kaze404 6y ago
If people don't use your product if they don't have the pressure of sunken cost, then maybe they're not really benefitting either way.
- zepto 6y ago
  The whole point of subscriptions is that they aren’t sunken cost.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    If I subscribe to something for a month, and then feel compelled to use it that month instead of some better tool because I paid for it, I would say that's a sunken cost. A time limited one, but still there.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Technically true, but seems like an exotic case, and proves the point that sunk cost isn’t a substantial issue here.
      - Shared404 6y ago
        >Seems like an exotic case, I've worked with enough people who used adobe because "I've already payed for this month, so I have to use this" that I'm not sure it's that exotic. And while sunk cost may not be a huge issue, it's definitely still there. I'm not going to make any sort of comment on anything else in this thread, because I don't really know what I'm talking about. However, I don't see how it's possible for someone to derive more benefit from an app overall by paying a higher subscription. Your subscribers might correlate better with people who are benefiting, but for an individual, either they [Pay less and have the same amount of possible benefit] or [Pay more and have the same amount of possible benefit]. How does it work out that they get better value from the second option?
  - Kaze404 6y ago
    For people with disposable income, sure. For the people parent is talking about, they definitely are.