25 ms·

I'm surprised that this crowd in particular is so incensed by someone paying $125 bucks a month for their software. If anyone knows how much it costs to make go

I'm surprised that this crowd in particular is so incensed by someone paying $125 bucks a month for their software. If anyone knows how much it costs to make good software and run a company that operates and maintains, I'd think it would be HN.

otterley 4y ago
It's been this way for years. HNers have a particularly egregious sense of entitlement around software, which is ironic because writing software pays their own bills. Perhaps a larger proportion of them nowadays are writing services that advertisers, rather than customers, are paying for, and so they don't see the cognitive dissonance.
rootsudo 4y ago
Because most people don't realize how these fees compound. The realization is why people are incensed. Which really makes you wonder, what businesses just survive by just this SAAS model that couldn't before in perpetual license/pre smart phone world.
- otterley 4y ago
  You would also think that HNers, being programmers, know how to do basic arithmetic.
ricardobeat 4y ago
It's easy to lose perspective, but that amount is 5% of the average net income in the US.
- temp_praneshp 4y ago
  Any reason to believe that's true for the subset of US residents that are on HN?
- noirbot 4y ago
  Sure, but not the average net income for people on HN probably, or the author's. The entire article is about them realizing they're probably spending too much!
- ghaff 4y ago
  It also probably not that different from what a person making that average income pays for their cell phone and possibly cable TV every month.
- bussierem 4y ago
  No, according to https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-27... the median household income is the US is $67,521 in 2020, which $125 a month is about 2.2% of. If you look at "real median earnings", you get a number of $41,535 which comes to 3.6%. Except that number includes "all workers aged 15 and over" which includes high schoolers part time work, so it's a highly skewed statistic when talking about people who might pay for software or a monthly sub like this. Neither of those numbers comes close to 5%, which would be a net income of $30,000/y.
  - robocat 4y ago
    The USA usually reports household income as you do, which contains about 2.5 people. So per-capita income is far less than the $67k figure you picked, and 5% is about right. In addition, using the mean (average) is deceptive, because it is skewed by the few people that earn a lot (Jeff Bezos walks into a bar). Using the median would make more sense (although the person you replied to hasn’t, probably because it is harder to find). The mean on HN is possibly higher, making the point moot? There are a lot of international commenters that could swing the number down. Side note: if you want to compare how well you are personally doing you need to compare by other factors. Age cohort especially matters for income and wealth comparisons - even for software dev?
    - bussierem 4y ago
      > In addition, using the mean (average) is deceptive, because it is skewed by the few people that earn a lot (Jeff Bezos walks into a bar). Using the median would make more sense Confused by this comment -- the source I linked IS using median, not mean. I guess that does mean (heh) that the number isn't skewed as much by higher numbers, but can still be skewed by the larger number of part-time high school kids too.
bgirard 4y ago
Maybe both of these two things can be true at the same time. This might be a sign that society is spending too many resources operating software companies for silly things when they would be better spent else where. Looking at the costs and voting with your dollar, like OP did, is your responsibility as a consumer to drive efficient market and resource allocation.
msbarnett 4y ago
I once had people screaming bloody murder at me here on HN for suggesting that, for a professional North American software engineer making a typical US SWE income, a one-time $150 purchase of a tool you would use daily in your professional capacity was totally reasonable. There’s a baffling disconnect here between how people perceive their own value of time while feeling entitled to the product of others’ time for essentially nothing.
- exogeny 4y ago
  It’s not baffling if you think you are better, and therefore your time is more valuable, than everyone else. And there is nothing more accurate about the average HN user than that. Especially me. I’m the best and smartest.
- burntoutfire 4y ago
  Do surgeons purchase any od they equipment they use on the operating table, or does hospital provide it all?
  - msbarnett 4y ago
    I would imagine that depends on whether they’re employed by a hospital or incorporating themselves and running their own private clinic. If you’re a salaried SWE, obviously expense the $150. But for a contracting SWE? $150 is really nothing compared to what a woodworker, wedding photographer, welder, or most any other self-employed professional has to spend on their tools.
  - gumby 4y ago
    Chefs provide their own knives. A lot of blue collar jobs require purchasing the uniform. Managers and execs in some industries still buy “work clothes” and though work pays for their travel they still buy luggage etc. I keep my work on work owned hardware and my personal stuff on my own computer/phone etc. That means paying for my own 1password etc (I only use free dev tools, as it happens)
  - ransom1538 4y ago
    Auto mechanics, chefs, the entire construction industry, usually provide their own tools. Skilled labor tends to value and keep their tools.
dagmx 4y ago
Because everyone wants to get paid but reduce their payments. E.g keep their money This same thing comes up anytime the topic of paid IDEs comes up, and people will act surprised that people pay for Jetbrains IDEs I think it's understandable when we consider most people struggle to meet ends meet, especially in their college and formative years. However really if something provides value to your life, it should be rewarded , especially if that value is higher than the cost. E.g Jetbrains IDEs pay for themselves every week in time saved. Many apps I subscribe to easily provide higher value to me than they cost.
- burntoutfire 4y ago
  When I use usem, I mainly do that on the job and Jetbrains IDEs provide value to my employer, not to me.
  - kaashif 4y ago
    I agree - my employer pays for IDEs and developer tools without question, and the main benefit goes to them. Some of it comes back to me in promotions and bonuses, but not all or most of it. Me paying for tools to increase my productivity at work might still make sense if it helps my pay increase, but it's even more worth it for the employer to do it.
  - dagmx 4y ago
    Surely depends on how things work out. Even though ultimately my employer is who saves money (and they pay for my work license), I end up benefiting because I have to work less , I’m therefore less stressed to hit deadlines and I’m seen as higher performing.
- zxexz 4y ago
  I pay for the Jetbrains all products pack, $250 a year. I spend on average 3-4 hours a day in their products. That $250 is pennies compared to the amount of value I create with the various JB IDEs. Good software - like IntelliJ, GoLand, etc. - don’t just act as a tool to get the job done, they act as a force multiplier enabling vastly better UX, tooling, etc. compared to competing software. I can’t imagine relying on Eclipse or VSCode for my work nowadays - I could do it fine, but it would feel like cutting an arm off.
yomkippur 4y ago
ssivark 4y ago
Assuming the median person is willing to spend ~$1440 on a laptop every 3 years which amortizes to $40/mo, to justify another $120/mo would require those services to 4x their productivity/satisfaction compared to getting a computer in the first place. For trade to truly be useful, it needs to provide surplus value for all parties involved; and I don’t think most subscription services make a compelling case to consumers at large. Maybe for those who have lots of money to spare, they might be willing to pay as much for incremental increases in convenience, but I doubt that applies to most people — even in rich countries. —— This is markedly different from the sentiment expressed in an Alan Kay quote (paraphrases): Most people spend about as much in their computer as they do on television, and use it about the same way. [He] would consider a good computer more valuable than a car, for the possibilities it entails [but no hardware/software creator seems to be operating with that level of ambition in providing users that much leverage].
- bscphil 4y ago
  I would be stunned if the median laptop purchased from Dell cost more than $750 before tax or was used less than three years. I think you're significantly overestimating that - maybe it's the median cost of a MacBook, but with the $1K MBA as good as it is, I even doubt that. > Maybe for those who have lots of money to spare, they might be willing to pay as much for incremental increases in convenience, but I doubt that applies to most people — even in rich countries. The cost of a product is more closely related to the cost (e.g. labor) of producing it than how useful it is. My mattress was purchased online for less than $200 and shipped. It's lasted almost a decade before showing any signs of age. That's maybe $25 a year for something I spend almost a third of my time using! By that standard, I shouldn't even be willing to buy a computer, which has a higher cost / value ratio. Doesn't really work like that, of course. Competition acts to keep prices down, but this only operates within a product market, not between different markets. Most stuff is much cheaper than would correspond to the use we get out of it, thankfully. Expensive writing tools are targeted towards people who can definitely afford them, and they manage to get away with enormous profit ratios in part because they're in niche markets with little competition between products. They're a rare exception where the price has trended closer to the value to users rather than the cost of production.
tootie 4y ago
Enterprise software can easily be 5 figures a month for even moderate usage.
newaccount74 4y ago
Because the marginal cost of selling a license is often close to zero, and companies often add pointless cloud features to lock people into subscriptions they don't want. It's possible to write software on your own or with a small team, and sell it for low prices, and make a decent income from it. I know it's possible because I've been doing it for a decade. But somehow over the years software developers have moved everything to subscriptions, prices are going up, and everyone competes for the attention of the people with lots of disposable income.
- otterley 4y ago
  The marginal cost of a copy has never mattered in the history of copyright. We're not talking about an item from a factory here; we're talking about works of mental labor that frequently take many thousands of person-hours and often tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to produce the first copy.
- noirbot 4y ago
  Judging by people in this comment section, no one has any disposable income to compete for, because $5/day is an insane poverty-making amount of money to spend on things. I'm confused what price you think most of these softwares should be charging. If you exclude things like MLB or Disney+ where their cost is tethered to the amorphous costs of entertainment, most of these don't cost all that much per day given how much a full time developer earns/costs per day.
jnovek 4y ago
I can’t speak for others, but I have limited, volatile income and subscriptions aren’t a realistic option for me. One-time purchases are much more realistic. I don’t care for subscriptions because they lock out those of us with limited means. Edit: even so, I still have $16/mo in subscriptions on my phone. :-/
rglullis 4y ago
I wouldn't put Disney+, Netflix and the other streaming service in the "software" bucket. I'd rather pirate than paying for these, but if people are paying these to get rid of Cable, I'd say it's more than justifiable. But what really drives me crazy is that if you asked people "Can you look at the actual software you are paying and take 20% to donate to developers of open source alternatives?", they would find all types of excuses.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
Tech-oriented internet commenters have very different behaviors and spending patterns than typical consumers. We occupy a unique position in that so many of our tools and technologies are freely available on the internet. Many people also grew up during periods where piracy was rampant and even the paid tools and media could be acquired (illegally) for free if you knew where to look. People stuck in this bubble tend to resent any requests for paid software, especially when it goes beyond one-time payments of nominal amounts. It’s a bubble. Outside of the bubble there are quite a few people who don’t mind paying subscription fees for software that delivers value. HN is not a good place to gather market sentiment or perform product research for this reason.
mixmastamyk 4y ago
Depends. Was the software commoditized in the 90s or a trivial feature that should be included in the OS? Or is it serving a lucrative niche that pays for itself every day in productivity? Need to be clear before making a judgement.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

otterley 4y ago

It's been this way for years. HNers have a particularly egregious sense of entitlement around software, which is ironic because writing software pays their own bills. Perhaps a larger proportion of them nowadays are writing services that advertisers, rather than customers, are paying for, and so they don't see the cognitive dissonance.

rootsudo 4y ago

Because most people don't realize how these fees compound. The realization is why people are incensed. Which really makes you wonder, what businesses just survive by just this SAAS model that couldn't before in perpetual license/pre smart phone world.

otterley 4y ago
You would also think that HNers, being programmers, know how to do basic arithmetic.

ricardobeat 4y ago

It's easy to lose perspective, but that amount is 5% of the average net income in the US.

temp_praneshp 4y ago
Any reason to believe that's true for the subset of US residents that are on HN?
noirbot 4y ago
Sure, but not the average net income for people on HN probably, or the author's. The entire article is about them realizing they're probably spending too much!
ghaff 4y ago
It also probably not that different from what a person making that average income pays for their cell phone and possibly cable TV every month.
bussierem 4y ago
No, according to https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-27... the median household income is the US is $67,521 in 2020, which $125 a month is about 2.2% of. If you look at "real median earnings", you get a number of $41,535 which comes to 3.6%. Except that number includes "all workers aged 15 and over" which includes high schoolers part time work, so it's a highly skewed statistic when talking about people who might pay for software or a monthly sub like this. Neither of those numbers comes close to 5%, which would be a net income of $30,000/y.
- robocat 4y ago
  The USA usually reports household income as you do, which contains about 2.5 people. So per-capita income is far less than the $67k figure you picked, and 5% is about right. In addition, using the mean (average) is deceptive, because it is skewed by the few people that earn a lot (Jeff Bezos walks into a bar). Using the median would make more sense (although the person you replied to hasn’t, probably because it is harder to find). The mean on HN is possibly higher, making the point moot? There are a lot of international commenters that could swing the number down. Side note: if you want to compare how well you are personally doing you need to compare by other factors. Age cohort especially matters for income and wealth comparisons - even for software dev?
  - bussierem 4y ago
    > In addition, using the mean (average) is deceptive, because it is skewed by the few people that earn a lot (Jeff Bezos walks into a bar). Using the median would make more sense Confused by this comment -- the source I linked IS using median, not mean. I guess that does mean (heh) that the number isn't skewed as much by higher numbers, but can still be skewed by the larger number of part-time high school kids too.

bgirard 4y ago

Maybe both of these two things can be true at the same time. This might be a sign that society is spending too many resources operating software companies for silly things when they would be better spent else where. Looking at the costs and voting with your dollar, like OP did, is your responsibility as a consumer to drive efficient market and resource allocation.

msbarnett 4y ago

I once had people screaming bloody murder at me here on HN for suggesting that, for a professional North American software engineer making a typical US SWE income, a one-time $150 purchase of a tool you would use daily in your professional capacity was totally reasonable. There’s a baffling disconnect here between how people perceive their own value of time while feeling entitled to the product of others’ time for essentially nothing.

exogeny 4y ago
It’s not baffling if you think you are better, and therefore your time is more valuable, than everyone else. And there is nothing more accurate about the average HN user than that. Especially me. I’m the best and smartest.
burntoutfire 4y ago
Do surgeons purchase any od they equipment they use on the operating table, or does hospital provide it all?
- msbarnett 4y ago
  I would imagine that depends on whether they’re employed by a hospital or incorporating themselves and running their own private clinic. If you’re a salaried SWE, obviously expense the $150. But for a contracting SWE? $150 is really nothing compared to what a woodworker, wedding photographer, welder, or most any other self-employed professional has to spend on their tools.
- gumby 4y ago
  Chefs provide their own knives. A lot of blue collar jobs require purchasing the uniform. Managers and execs in some industries still buy “work clothes” and though work pays for their travel they still buy luggage etc. I keep my work on work owned hardware and my personal stuff on my own computer/phone etc. That means paying for my own 1password etc (I only use free dev tools, as it happens)
- ransom1538 4y ago
  Auto mechanics, chefs, the entire construction industry, usually provide their own tools. Skilled labor tends to value and keep their tools.

dagmx 4y ago

Because everyone wants to get paid but reduce their payments. E.g keep their money This same thing comes up anytime the topic of paid IDEs comes up, and people will act surprised that people pay for Jetbrains IDEs I think it's understandable when we consider most people struggle to meet ends meet, especially in their college and formative years. However really if something provides value to your life, it should be rewarded , especially if that value is higher than the cost. E.g Jetbrains IDEs pay for themselves every week in time saved. Many apps I subscribe to easily provide higher value to me than they cost.

burntoutfire 4y ago
When I use usem, I mainly do that on the job and Jetbrains IDEs provide value to my employer, not to me.
- kaashif 4y ago
  I agree - my employer pays for IDEs and developer tools without question, and the main benefit goes to them. Some of it comes back to me in promotions and bonuses, but not all or most of it. Me paying for tools to increase my productivity at work might still make sense if it helps my pay increase, but it's even more worth it for the employer to do it.
- dagmx 4y ago
  Surely depends on how things work out. Even though ultimately my employer is who saves money (and they pay for my work license), I end up benefiting because I have to work less , I’m therefore less stressed to hit deadlines and I’m seen as higher performing.
zxexz 4y ago
I pay for the Jetbrains all products pack, $250 a year. I spend on average 3-4 hours a day in their products. That $250 is pennies compared to the amount of value I create with the various JB IDEs. Good software - like IntelliJ, GoLand, etc. - don’t just act as a tool to get the job done, they act as a force multiplier enabling vastly better UX, tooling, etc. compared to competing software. I can’t imagine relying on Eclipse or VSCode for my work nowadays - I could do it fine, but it would feel like cutting an arm off.

yomkippur 4y ago

ssivark 4y ago

Assuming the median person is willing to spend ~$1440 on a laptop every 3 years which amortizes to $40/mo, to justify another $120/mo would require those services to 4x their productivity/satisfaction compared to getting a computer in the first place. For trade to truly be useful, it needs to provide surplus value for all parties involved; and I don’t think most subscription services make a compelling case to consumers at large. Maybe for those who have lots of money to spare, they might be willing to pay as much for incremental increases in convenience, but I doubt that applies to most people — even in rich countries. —— This is markedly different from the sentiment expressed in an Alan Kay quote (paraphrases): Most people spend about as much in their computer as they do on television, and use it about the same way. [He] would consider a good computer more valuable than a car, for the possibilities it entails [but no hardware/software creator seems to be operating with that level of ambition in providing users that much leverage].

bscphil 4y ago
I would be stunned if the median laptop purchased from Dell cost more than $750 before tax or was used less than three years. I think you're significantly overestimating that - maybe it's the median cost of a MacBook, but with the $1K MBA as good as it is, I even doubt that. > Maybe for those who have lots of money to spare, they might be willing to pay as much for incremental increases in convenience, but I doubt that applies to most people — even in rich countries. The cost of a product is more closely related to the cost (e.g. labor) of producing it than how useful it is. My mattress was purchased online for less than $200 and shipped. It's lasted almost a decade before showing any signs of age. That's maybe $25 a year for something I spend almost a third of my time using! By that standard, I shouldn't even be willing to buy a computer, which has a higher cost / value ratio. Doesn't really work like that, of course. Competition acts to keep prices down, but this only operates within a product market, not between different markets. Most stuff is much cheaper than would correspond to the use we get out of it, thankfully. Expensive writing tools are targeted towards people who can definitely afford them, and they manage to get away with enormous profit ratios in part because they're in niche markets with little competition between products. They're a rare exception where the price has trended closer to the value to users rather than the cost of production.

tootie 4y ago

Enterprise software can easily be 5 figures a month for even moderate usage.

newaccount74 4y ago

Because the marginal cost of selling a license is often close to zero, and companies often add pointless cloud features to lock people into subscriptions they don't want. It's possible to write software on your own or with a small team, and sell it for low prices, and make a decent income from it. I know it's possible because I've been doing it for a decade. But somehow over the years software developers have moved everything to subscriptions, prices are going up, and everyone competes for the attention of the people with lots of disposable income.

otterley 4y ago
The marginal cost of a copy has never mattered in the history of copyright. We're not talking about an item from a factory here; we're talking about works of mental labor that frequently take many thousands of person-hours and often tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to produce the first copy.
noirbot 4y ago
Judging by people in this comment section, no one has any disposable income to compete for, because $5/day is an insane poverty-making amount of money to spend on things. I'm confused what price you think most of these softwares should be charging. If you exclude things like MLB or Disney+ where their cost is tethered to the amorphous costs of entertainment, most of these don't cost all that much per day given how much a full time developer earns/costs per day.

jnovek 4y ago

I can’t speak for others, but I have limited, volatile income and subscriptions aren’t a realistic option for me. One-time purchases are much more realistic. I don’t care for subscriptions because they lock out those of us with limited means. Edit: even so, I still have $16/mo in subscriptions on my phone. :-/

rglullis 4y ago

I wouldn't put Disney+, Netflix and the other streaming service in the "software" bucket. I'd rather pirate than paying for these, but if people are paying these to get rid of Cable, I'd say it's more than justifiable. But what really drives me crazy is that if you asked people "Can you look at the actual software you are paying and take 20% to donate to developers of open source alternatives?", they would find all types of excuses.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

Tech-oriented internet commenters have very different behaviors and spending patterns than typical consumers. We occupy a unique position in that so many of our tools and technologies are freely available on the internet. Many people also grew up during periods where piracy was rampant and even the paid tools and media could be acquired (illegally) for free if you knew where to look. People stuck in this bubble tend to resent any requests for paid software, especially when it goes beyond one-time payments of nominal amounts. It’s a bubble. Outside of the bubble there are quite a few people who don’t mind paying subscription fees for software that delivers value. HN is not a good place to gather market sentiment or perform product research for this reason.

mixmastamyk 4y ago

Depends. Was the software commoditized in the 90s or a trivial feature that should be included in the OS? Or is it serving a lucrative niche that pays for itself every day in productivity? Need to be clear before making a judgement.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]