> Or they realise the hubris you need to have to think 150$ to be a meaningless amount of money. I didn’t read it that way at all, and still don’t after the in

> Or they realise the hubris you need to have to think 150$ to be a meaningless amount of money. I didn’t read it that way at all, and still don’t after the interpretation surprised me enough to re-read it several times. They clearly said it’s insignificant relative to the value they get from it. I don’t think the suggestion was that everyone should reach the same conclusion in their own cost/benefit analysis, or that the sum itself is insignificant. Just that they value it enough to dismiss the cost to them. Several of us have invested gob knows how many thousands of dollars into tools we value for the productivity they afford. I could certainly make a decent living on a low spec computer in whatever form factor is most economical at the time, but I spent significantly more because I’m more effective with tools that better fit my workflow. But those lower spec options are available for people with less budget flexibility or more budget sensitivity. Likewise, Kaleidoscope and other high cost software is prohibitively expensive for some and absolutely worth every fractional unit of currency to others. I own a Kaleidoscope license and don’t regret it. There are countless softwares across pretty much the entire range of license pricing that I’d pass on because they’re either not valuable to me or not valuable enough to justify the price.