4 ms·
It's a shame because its pricing structure works like how many people misunderstand taxes to work. If you earn $39,990/year and then get a $30/year raise, then
by AgentME 5y ago
It's a shame because its pricing structure works like how many people misunderstand taxes to work. If you earn $39,990/year and then get a $30/year raise, then you'll actually be set back to $39,960/year after you pay the new price for this service. You might have to awkwardly explain to your boss that you don't want that $0.015/hour raise. If instead the service worked like taxes by charging a percent of the money you make over $40k (and then limiting the value up to $5), then the price trap issue would be solved.
(This suggestion is a joke, I just have the issues of welfare traps and popular misunderstandings of taxes on my mind.)
- eCa 5y agoFrom the pricing page: it obviously isn't perfect — there are people making more than $40,000/year for whom $5/month is an undue burden, and there are people making less than $40,000/year who can easily afford $5/month. but it's not like i'm checking, it's basically pay-what-you-want with $40,000 as a suggested cutoff for paying.
- gnulinux 5y agoThis is very reasonable. I wish all small software shops acted like this. Reminds me of REAPER program which also has a reasonable pricing model like this giving you unlimited time to try and buy it once it's useful to you.
- askonomm 5y agoIf there was an option to pay or not pay, most people would probably opt to not pay, and you as a software developer or shop probably want to pay bills, so wishing that all shops acted like this is not logical to me at all.
- gnulinux 5y agoWhat you're missing is convenience is a very valuable feature. This is exactly why I decided to give my $60 to the aforementioned program.