4 ms·

This looks like a great concept- but I have to question the one time purchase price. Right now, Burner is top of mind for me, but I don't have an immediate nee

This looks like a great concept- but I have to question the one time purchase price. Right now, Burner is top of mind for me, but I don't have an immediate need to use the app. If it were free, I would gladly download it right now, and simply pay for a number whenever a use case arises. As it stands now, I probably won't download the app, and when a potential use case does arise, who knows if I'll remember (and be able to download on the fly) this app. Great concept, and love the rest of the pricing model built on Twilio. I just think the Burner team might be missing out on potential additional distribution.

brk 14y ago
My perspective: It's $2.00. I'll probably use it at some near-future unpredictable time. Between now and then I'll probably also spend $50 at Starbucks and $100 at the bar. $2.00 is not a considered purchase.
gregcohn 14y ago
Thanks for the feedback. We gave this a lot of thought but ultimately didn't want to create an experience that was a "free" download that required additional in-app payment before it had any utility.
- quintendf 14y ago
  Totally fair- always a tough tradeoff to make. thanks for the response!
asmithmd1 14y ago
Why do people treat buying an app with the same amount of deliberation as buying a new car? The price is less than a large coffee at Dunkin Donuts. I don't mean to be picking on you quintendf because I do exactly the same thing and your comment made me realize it. I am going to download the app just because of your arguement - I am going to need it sometime in the next few months and not remember the name. There must be some cognitive bias about buying an app. I will blow $2 on a Diet Coke when I fill-up with gas with barely a second thought. But ask me to download a $2 app - Whoa! this is going to take some thought, research...
- icebraining 14y ago
  http://theoatmeal.com/blog/apps http://theoatmeal.com/blog/apps
  - asmithmd1 14y ago
    Yep, that is exactly me. Are we hardwired to not spend when we get nothing (physical) in return? Do movies "hack" this behavior by handing you a ticket? Will my 6 and 8 year old daughters not have this behavior "tick?" They already see no problem with asking to spend $50 on a chest of gems.
    - jh3 14y ago
      If most apps were $5 and $10 instead of free and $.99, you would probably buy the $5 apps and wish the $10 were $5. For better or worse, people expect mobile apps to be <$1 or free.
    - hosh 14y ago
      Oh strange. I gotta poll my friends about this.
- quintendf 14y ago
  Agreed- there definitely seems to be some kind of mental hurdle people have about those $2 purchases. Like you, I'll probably end up purchasing it now that I've thought about it logically and because gregcohn took the time to respond to my post. That said, my comment was more focused on the business decision of making an app like this paid. If you could effectively A/B test this kind of scenario, I wonder which approach would actually lead to more long term revenue.
  - gregcohn 14y ago
    So do we :-D
- danso 14y ago
  Quintendf wasn't necessarily saying that apps shouldn't cost money. He/she was asking why this one, considering the obvious stream of revenue that it will bring? And why even ask why? The bar has already been set for apps to be mostly free or just 99 cents. It's a basic part of human psychology to be affected by an "anchor price", regardless of rationality. anchor price, i.e. a suggested price, which in this case is the perceived status quo of free or 99 cents. In a famous experiment, students were told to spin a roulette wheel and then make an estimate about some world fact. Even though the roulette wheel obviously* had nothing to do with the question, students who got a higher number from the roulette spin on average made higher estimates.

brk 14y ago

My perspective: It's $2.00. I'll probably use it at some near-future unpredictable time. Between now and then I'll probably also spend $50 at Starbucks and $100 at the bar. $2.00 is not a considered purchase.

gregcohn 14y ago

Thanks for the feedback. We gave this a lot of thought but ultimately didn't want to create an experience that was a "free" download that required additional in-app payment before it had any utility.

quintendf 14y ago
Totally fair- always a tough tradeoff to make. thanks for the response!

asmithmd1 14y ago

Why do people treat buying an app with the same amount of deliberation as buying a new car? The price is less than a large coffee at Dunkin Donuts. I don't mean to be picking on you quintendf because I do exactly the same thing and your comment made me realize it. I am going to download the app just because of your arguement - I am going to need it sometime in the next few months and not remember the name. There must be some cognitive bias about buying an app. I will blow $2 on a Diet Coke when I fill-up with gas with barely a second thought. But ask me to download a $2 app - Whoa! this is going to take some thought, research...

icebraining 14y ago
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/apps http://theoatmeal.com/blog/apps
- asmithmd1 14y ago
  Yep, that is exactly me. Are we hardwired to not spend when we get nothing (physical) in return? Do movies "hack" this behavior by handing you a ticket? Will my 6 and 8 year old daughters not have this behavior "tick?" They already see no problem with asking to spend $50 on a chest of gems.
  - jh3 14y ago
    If most apps were $5 and $10 instead of free and $.99, you would probably buy the $5 apps and wish the $10 were $5. For better or worse, people expect mobile apps to be <$1 or free.
  - hosh 14y ago
    Oh strange. I gotta poll my friends about this.
quintendf 14y ago
Agreed- there definitely seems to be some kind of mental hurdle people have about those $2 purchases. Like you, I'll probably end up purchasing it now that I've thought about it logically and because gregcohn took the time to respond to my post. That said, my comment was more focused on the business decision of making an app like this paid. If you could effectively A/B test this kind of scenario, I wonder which approach would actually lead to more long term revenue.
- gregcohn 14y ago
  So do we :-D
danso 14y ago
Quintendf wasn't necessarily saying that apps shouldn't cost money. He/she was asking why this one, considering the obvious stream of revenue that it will bring? And why even ask why? The bar has already been set for apps to be mostly free or just 99 cents. It's a basic part of human psychology to be affected by an "anchor price", regardless of rationality. anchor price, i.e. a suggested price, which in this case is the perceived status quo of free or 99 cents. In a famous experiment, students were told to spin a roulette wheel and then make an estimate about some world fact. Even though the roulette wheel obviously* had nothing to do with the question, students who got a higher number from the roulette spin on average made higher estimates.