5 ms·

He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument. On the developer side pricing this kin

He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument. On the developer side pricing this kind of consumer software per-device seems like poor marketing. It's unnecessarily reminding every potential customer about incremental cost. It also anchors the price incorrectly: "this software is worth $24.95, but you'll need to pay $49.90 to use it." An unlimited $49.95 license makes more sense to me. Or a two-device license with upgrades to capture existing users who are willing to make additional upgrades based on sunk costs.

andrewfelix 15y ago
Agreed. The author's argument is nullified by this statement: "I still won't pay $50 for a nice-to-have utility"
- earl 15y ago
  The author has what looks like two mac laptops plus an external monitor. At least one of the macbooks is a macbook pro from the image in the article, so conservatively $3.5K in hardware? And $50 -- less than 1.5% of hardware price -- is too much money! I understand people have been conditioned to think software should be free, but getting hung up over $50 to fix what sounds like a significant hassle seems dumb. The alternative is what -- getting a hardware kvm or physically switching keyboard + monitor connections? Also fta: Since arguing with Bartels, I have discovered Teleport, a newer, free, Mac-only keyboard-and-mouse sharing app. Its existence made me think, briefly, that I had won the argument. But Teleport has issues (the mouse gets stuck on target machines) and I've found it, for me, unworkable. The mind boggles -- does this man not value his free time at all? He continued searching for software to avoid paying the $50. I'm curious how much time this guy would spend to avoid paying $50 and moving on with his life. There's obviously a limit, or he'd be enrolling in a CS undergrad to write his own to avoid spending that precious precious fifty bucks. That said, I kind of agree with underwater the vendor misprices the app: $24.90 per computer, when the software is literally useless without two computers, should be $50 per pair + $24.90 for 3rd, 4th, etc.
  - bartelsmedia 15y ago
    > $24.90 per computer, when the software is literally useless without two computers, should be $50 per pair + $24.90 for 3rd, 4th, etc. Uhm, but the price is just that as you said: 2 x $24.90 = $49.80 which makes around $50 per pair. The decision to sell individual licenses is made because it makes it easier to offer add-on licenses which you can conviniently add later at any time. I agree though, that we may need to improve how to communicate it.
    - willyt 15y ago
      I think he was making the point that you are fighting against psychology with your approach to pricing.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    At least one of the macbooks is a macbook pro from the image in the article, so conservatively $3.5K in hardware? And $50 -- less than 1.5% of hardware price -- is too much money! I'd say a specialized application like that provides well below 1.5% of the value that two Macbooks provide. But even if it wasn't: when CBS replaced my PC with a MacBook, giving me two-Mac setup He didn't pay for the Macbooks, his employer did. So their price is irrelevant to this discussion.
    - dkersten 15y ago
      Then maybe he should ask his employer to pay the $50 too.
  - SatvikBeri 15y ago
    I've often found that journalists place a very low value on their time, possibly since they're paid so little. I had one conversation where I convinced a journalist that this software would save him 7 at least hours and cost $100...to which he responded, "If it's just 7 hours, why would I spend $100?"
  - kstrauser 15y ago
    The mind boggles -- does this man not value his free time at all? He continued searching for software to avoid paying the $50. I understand your reasoning, to a point. But remember that he was previously paying $0 for an open source app that provided mostly the same functionality, and it's a big jump going from nothing to $50. In that situation, I'd probably spend quite a bit of time researching my alternatives so that 1) I didn't have to pay $50 more than I'm used to paying, 2) I don't have to pony up an extra $25 if I add another computer to the mix, 3) I can tell my friends and coworkers about the free alternative so it gains momentum and supplants the pricy version. The "price/utility" equation is very much at play here. A $50 replacement for a free app better provide an enormous utility to make it worthwhile. There's a certain cross-platform text editor that gets mentioned lots here on HN that I bought because it was very useful to me. "Small" apps like a mouse sharing widget just aren't useful enough to me that I'd be willing to support that price point.
wallflower 15y ago
I work at a software company. One of my friends there adamantly refuses to pay for software (he is still waiting for a proper unlock for the iPhone 4S). Talking with him about paying for software (yes, reminding him that his salary comes from people paying for software) reminds me of talking with my Republican-to-the-core friend about Global Warming. He just refuses to budge on his "values". I remember once doing a charity event (training for a triathlon). I thought I had a good relationship with my parent's neighbor. I thought we had interesting conversations about life. He wrote me a tax-deductible check for $10 for my cause. That was the lowest donation out of the many I ended up raising. Money is weird. It's free speech, in a way. You can express what you want by either paying it or with-holding it.
- pagekalisedown 15y ago
  I don't understand your argument about the $10 check. Sounds like you're looking a gift horse in the mouth.
  - wallflower 15y ago
    Going completely OT here - but let me explain the complete context of why $10 was not a generous donation: The event was done through Team-in-Training. Team-in-Training is an organization that raises funds for cancer research. To raise funds, they help individuals train for an endurance event like a marathon/triathlon. Over 80% have never done an endurance event before. The training is fairly intense and lasts three to four months. The hard part about Team-in-Training is not the training, however. It is the fundraising. You actually sign a document - if you do not officially withdraw by a certain time, usually several weeks after training starts - that your credit card will be charged for the balance of your minimum fundraising obligation (whatever you do not raise). For my event, there was a minimum fundraising obligation of almost $4,000. This was an order of magnitude and then some more than I've ever raised for any charity prior. My argument about the $10 check was that I thought I had a good relationship with my parent's neighbor and that he would recognize the importance of what I was trying to do (personal growth and all that) and help support me (it is all 100% tax deductible) with a $25 or $50 donation. As it turns out, going back to the idea of giving money as "free speech", the people who gave the most usually had a direct connection to leukemia or lymphoma in their family. And they wanted to support me in memory of their loved ones. It wasn't about me, it was more about them (and usually I didn't know that there was a connection until afterwards). As for my parent's neighbor with the $10 check, he didn't care for the cause (even though he is in that field) or, more importantly, for me and what I was trying to overcome/conquer/do/accomplish. It hurt but I eventually got over it. I know that getting asked for money is hard - but asking people for money is harder (you're putting yourself out there). The triathlon was a life-changing experience. I ended up raising almost $6,000. I highly recommend TNT to anyone I encounter who ever says "I wish I could run a marathon" or "I can't swim so I can't do a triathlon" or "I'm in a rut" (marathons are their most popular event, by far). http://teamintraining.org/ http://teamintraining.org/
leeoniya 15y ago
yeah this is an interesting point. on one hand it's a dead-simple model to explain and makes sense if you're using 6 computers. on the other hand the majority of users will not go above 3. i would probably say $50 for every 3 devices, only sold in 3-packs. this tiered version would seem a bit more fair and not have much impact on sales/support IMO.
scotty79 15y ago
> He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument. Even if you want, need and can, doesn't mean you should. Personal purchases are almost never about economy but always about psychology. You buy to feel good afterwards. If high price spoils the pleasure for you then you are better off not buying even if you need, want and can afford. Similarly low price or other circumstances like service or affiliation of the seller can spoil pleasure for some.
- infiniteburp 15y ago
  However ... if we adjust prices lower, people buy more. If we set prices higher, people buy less. Sellers price their product to maximize their profits.
  - scotty79 15y ago
    I'm just saying that it's entirely possible to fulfill all economics perquisites for the purchase and still not make the purchase because we just plain don't like the price and won't feel good after paying it.

andrewfelix 15y ago

Agreed. The author's argument is nullified by this statement: "I still won't pay $50 for a nice-to-have utility"

earl 15y ago
The author has what looks like two mac laptops plus an external monitor. At least one of the macbooks is a macbook pro from the image in the article, so conservatively $3.5K in hardware? And $50 -- less than 1.5% of hardware price -- is too much money! I understand people have been conditioned to think software should be free, but getting hung up over $50 to fix what sounds like a significant hassle seems dumb. The alternative is what -- getting a hardware kvm or physically switching keyboard + monitor connections? Also fta: Since arguing with Bartels, I have discovered Teleport, a newer, free, Mac-only keyboard-and-mouse sharing app. Its existence made me think, briefly, that I had won the argument. But Teleport has issues (the mouse gets stuck on target machines) and I've found it, for me, unworkable. The mind boggles -- does this man not value his free time at all? He continued searching for software to avoid paying the $50. I'm curious how much time this guy would spend to avoid paying $50 and moving on with his life. There's obviously a limit, or he'd be enrolling in a CS undergrad to write his own to avoid spending that precious precious fifty bucks. That said, I kind of agree with underwater the vendor misprices the app: $24.90 per computer, when the software is literally useless without two computers, should be $50 per pair + $24.90 for 3rd, 4th, etc.
- bartelsmedia 15y ago
  > $24.90 per computer, when the software is literally useless without two computers, should be $50 per pair + $24.90 for 3rd, 4th, etc. Uhm, but the price is just that as you said: 2 x $24.90 = $49.80 which makes around $50 per pair. The decision to sell individual licenses is made because it makes it easier to offer add-on licenses which you can conviniently add later at any time. I agree though, that we may need to improve how to communicate it.
  - willyt 15y ago
    I think he was making the point that you are fighting against psychology with your approach to pricing.
- icebraining 15y ago
  At least one of the macbooks is a macbook pro from the image in the article, so conservatively $3.5K in hardware? And $50 -- less than 1.5% of hardware price -- is too much money! I'd say a specialized application like that provides well below 1.5% of the value that two Macbooks provide. But even if it wasn't: when CBS replaced my PC with a MacBook, giving me two-Mac setup He didn't pay for the Macbooks, his employer did. So their price is irrelevant to this discussion.
  - dkersten 15y ago
    Then maybe he should ask his employer to pay the $50 too.
- SatvikBeri 15y ago
  I've often found that journalists place a very low value on their time, possibly since they're paid so little. I had one conversation where I convinced a journalist that this software would save him 7 at least hours and cost $100...to which he responded, "If it's just 7 hours, why would I spend $100?"
- kstrauser 15y ago
  The mind boggles -- does this man not value his free time at all? He continued searching for software to avoid paying the $50. I understand your reasoning, to a point. But remember that he was previously paying $0 for an open source app that provided mostly the same functionality, and it's a big jump going from nothing to $50. In that situation, I'd probably spend quite a bit of time researching my alternatives so that 1) I didn't have to pay $50 more than I'm used to paying, 2) I don't have to pony up an extra $25 if I add another computer to the mix, 3) I can tell my friends and coworkers about the free alternative so it gains momentum and supplants the pricy version. The "price/utility" equation is very much at play here. A $50 replacement for a free app better provide an enormous utility to make it worthwhile. There's a certain cross-platform text editor that gets mentioned lots here on HN that I bought because it was very useful to me. "Small" apps like a mouse sharing widget just aren't useful enough to me that I'd be willing to support that price point.

wallflower 15y ago

I work at a software company. One of my friends there adamantly refuses to pay for software (he is still waiting for a proper unlock for the iPhone 4S). Talking with him about paying for software (yes, reminding him that his salary comes from people paying for software) reminds me of talking with my Republican-to-the-core friend about Global Warming. He just refuses to budge on his "values". I remember once doing a charity event (training for a triathlon). I thought I had a good relationship with my parent's neighbor. I thought we had interesting conversations about life. He wrote me a tax-deductible check for $10 for my cause. That was the lowest donation out of the many I ended up raising. Money is weird. It's free speech, in a way. You can express what you want by either paying it or with-holding it.

pagekalisedown 15y ago
I don't understand your argument about the $10 check. Sounds like you're looking a gift horse in the mouth.
- wallflower 15y ago
  Going completely OT here - but let me explain the complete context of why $10 was not a generous donation: The event was done through Team-in-Training. Team-in-Training is an organization that raises funds for cancer research. To raise funds, they help individuals train for an endurance event like a marathon/triathlon. Over 80% have never done an endurance event before. The training is fairly intense and lasts three to four months. The hard part about Team-in-Training is not the training, however. It is the fundraising. You actually sign a document - if you do not officially withdraw by a certain time, usually several weeks after training starts - that your credit card will be charged for the balance of your minimum fundraising obligation (whatever you do not raise). For my event, there was a minimum fundraising obligation of almost $4,000. This was an order of magnitude and then some more than I've ever raised for any charity prior. My argument about the $10 check was that I thought I had a good relationship with my parent's neighbor and that he would recognize the importance of what I was trying to do (personal growth and all that) and help support me (it is all 100% tax deductible) with a $25 or $50 donation. As it turns out, going back to the idea of giving money as "free speech", the people who gave the most usually had a direct connection to leukemia or lymphoma in their family. And they wanted to support me in memory of their loved ones. It wasn't about me, it was more about them (and usually I didn't know that there was a connection until afterwards). As for my parent's neighbor with the $10 check, he didn't care for the cause (even though he is in that field) or, more importantly, for me and what I was trying to overcome/conquer/do/accomplish. It hurt but I eventually got over it. I know that getting asked for money is hard - but asking people for money is harder (you're putting yourself out there). The triathlon was a life-changing experience. I ended up raising almost $6,000. I highly recommend TNT to anyone I encounter who ever says "I wish I could run a marathon" or "I can't swim so I can't do a triathlon" or "I'm in a rut" (marathons are their most popular event, by far). http://teamintraining.org/ http://teamintraining.org/

leeoniya 15y ago

yeah this is an interesting point. on one hand it's a dead-simple model to explain and makes sense if you're using 6 computers. on the other hand the majority of users will not go above 3. i would probably say $50 for every 3 devices, only sold in 3-packs. this tiered version would seem a bit more fair and not have much impact on sales/support IMO.

scotty79 15y ago

> He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument. Even if you want, need and can, doesn't mean you should. Personal purchases are almost never about economy but always about psychology. You buy to feel good afterwards. If high price spoils the pleasure for you then you are better off not buying even if you need, want and can afford. Similarly low price or other circumstances like service or affiliation of the seller can spoil pleasure for some.

infiniteburp 15y ago
However ... if we adjust prices lower, people buy more. If we set prices higher, people buy less. Sellers price their product to maximize their profits.
- scotty79 15y ago
  I'm just saying that it's entirely possible to fulfill all economics perquisites for the purchase and still not make the purchase because we just plain don't like the price and won't feel good after paying it.