4 ms·
Relevant post on MSDN: https://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2012/07/20/making-money-with-your-apps-through-the-windows-store.aspx?Redirected=true https
by jaipilot747 14y ago
Relevant post on MSDN: https://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2012/07/20/making-money-with-your-apps-through-the-windows-store.aspx?Redirected=true https://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2012/07/20/mak...
The $1.49 may not be very far from $0.99 in real terms, but I feel it significantly increases resistance. I'd be much more willing to spend $0.99 for an app I want to check out than $1.49. Wonder what the rationale behind that figure is.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoIt might be that they feel Windows is a "real OS" for "real computers", not for phones. Similarly to how iPad versions of apps are sometimes more expensive than their iPhone/iPod touch counterparts, if separate.
- heyitsnick 14y agoFor me, the resistance between $1 and $1.49 is about equal. That is, pretty much zero resistance. Anything below about $2 i think i would still click 'purchase' on a whim without really investigating it. Only at about $3 is would i pause and consider if i really needed it. (fwiw i'm far from rich, and I own an Android + iPhone and have purchased less than 30 apps lifetime... so I guess whimsy doesn't strike me often, even at 99c! Just adding another data-point.)
- sirclueless 14y agoI think there is a very real difference between 0.something and 1.something. $1.49 is an "awkward" price, that is not as obviously "as cheap as we can make it". In the iOS ecosystem there is something of a race to the bottom in pricing, where everyone is competing to have the most widely used $.99 app. I can see how Microsoft considers this to devalue the app ecosystem: a system where apps compete on both price and value is more healthy than a system where 50% of the paid apps are at $.99 and everyone competes on visibility.