4 ms·

> people would never pay for software. I see this and not see this. See this = friend wants to check out app but it costs $1-$3. I'm like, that's less than a

> people would never pay for software. I see this and not see this. See this = friend wants to check out app but it costs $1-$3. I'm like, that's less than a coffee or a candy bar that you consume disposably. Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason. not see = Steam

emseetech 1y ago
Also, do people not pay for it because there are still so many free competing services? If everything goes the way of ads and (for lack of a better term) enshittification, could consumer attitudes change?
- bitmasher9 1y ago
  There is a market for paid software services with a promise of not enshittifying. Kagi and Fastmail are two examples. Now, this market probably isn’t going to put you in the Fortune 500, but is enough to run a profitable business.
  - account42 1y ago
    The problem is that there is also tons of services that promised not to enshittify but then changed their minds when they thought that fucking over their users would be more profitable. That includes even Google, look up their early views on ads. Because of this those promises are often (IMO rightfully) ignored as hot air. The only way to ensure that your software doesn't get enshittified is to legally guarantee that you are not dependent on a single vendor for future development - the most effective way to do that is insist on open source software.
    - bitmasher9 1y ago
      Yeah I love open source. Daily Linux desktop user and open source code contributor here. Open source doesn’t solve the problem “I need to be able to search the entire internet for a document.” Even “I want to safely receive email” is a challenge to do with open source software. At some point I need to use software as a service, and at that point I’d prefer to give money to the service directly than having the service target advertising at me.
    - emseetech 1y ago
      That's not the only way. Wikipedia has avoided it through a non-profit, donation and volunteer based structure.
Groxx 1y ago
>Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason. Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable. Quite a lot of paid software does not meet that bar. It's far more likely to both cost you money and waste a few hours (much longer than that food demanded, unless you got food poisoning). I generally agree it's far out of balance, but I do think it's broadly understandable.
- eddythompson80 1y ago
  > Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable. That's not even remotely close to being true. Plenty of people would order a $25 dish at a place and not like it. Not finishing the dish, or throwing a way a half eaten candy bar or bad-tasting-$6-cup of coffee is very normal. Plenty of (if most) food is meh or not enjoyable. It just serves a purpose and fills you and you move on.
  - Groxx 1y ago
    If you're routinely buying and throwing out $25 plates of food, then you're in a different income bracket than many people. And then, yes, avoiding a $3 app is more nonsensical than for most.
    - eddythompson80 1y ago
      No one said you’re routinely doing it. It just happens for thing at orders of magnitude higher than what can be asked for software. One bad coffee, or meal or a %20 tip on a $40 order of pizza is far more than the 1.99 or 3.99 software can ask for, and it’s still too much. Tipping $5 or a $10 is not a big deal, but a $1.99 app is like “ooof, is there like a free version?” It’s not even a blanket statement on software. gamers have shown they are willing to pay, though their money comes with strings attached. Mac users are more willing to pay than Windows users who are more willing to pay than Linux users.
      - 1y ago
whoisyc 1y ago
Thanks to Australian customer protection laws, Steam has some of the most lenient refund policies among digital software stores. You can usually get a full refund if your play time is less than a few hours. Plus there are frequent sales. Don’t underestimate the psychological impact of making people feel “I have to buy this now or the deal will be gone.” I genuinely do not know how to get a refund from the google play store or the apple equivalent. (The downside of the Steam policy is it makes Steam unviable for games that can be played in full very quickly. Develops can also game the system by dragging out early game so the player is over the refundable time by the time they reach the rough parts. But this is for another discussion.)
- Shaanie 1y ago
  There's no problem getting a refund for apps in my experience, I've done it a handful of times when I've changed my mind and it was easy and fully automated.
  - latexr 1y ago
    Anecdotally, as a counterpoint, I asked for refunds on the iOS App Store maybe twice in a row and since then every purchase was met with a dialog where I had to confirm I waved my right to a refund. This was over a decade ago, so may be very outdated. I don’t even think in-app purchases were yet a thing. I wasn’t trying to abuse the apps (I pay for software) and was in fact trying to use the refund policy to allow me to buy more apps because I could test without the fear of paying for duds. Their policy had the opposite effect and I basically stopped buying on the App Store.
- SkiFire13 1y ago
  > Thanks to Australian customer protection laws Source? I always thought this was a general Steam policy, as it's available pretty much anywhere.
- notpushkin 1y ago
  > Thanks to Australian customer protection laws, Steam has some of the most lenient refund policies among digital software stores. You can usually get a full refund if your play time is less than a few hours. I think it’s actually worldwide?
keiferski 1y ago
I think it is because humans spent thousands, tens of thousands of years not doing much other than searching for food and trading one physical object for another physical object. The idea of trading something valuable for an abstract piece of software or paper is still not really natural to us, and is a learned behavior.
- parineum 1y ago
  I buy almost everything with a piece of plastic that represents a company who's agreed to lend me money that represents absolutely nothing except the common agreement that it's valuable.
  - keiferski 1y ago
    Yes and credit cards are a learned behavior, not an instinctual thing - and I think not buying an app for $1 is largely based on instinct.
    - pmontra 1y ago
      People instinctively or factually know that there are other apps that do basically the same thing for free. It's the case for messaging apps and for almost any other kind of app. It's hard to beat the price point of a free app, even if it might include tracking, advertising, spying inside their package. If WhatsApp would start asking for money hundreds of millions of people would switch to something else in a few days, even to a free app created overnight to capitalize on the opportunity.
- chgs 1y ago
  On the other hand paying for service is the oldest profession going
  - keiferski 1y ago
    Yep and the success of SAAS compared to low cost, buy it once software (like apps) is a testament to that.
azherebtsov 1y ago
Maybe one of the reasons is that buying software in general case is more complicated. Kebab around the corner does not ask you for credit card details, delivery address, probably will not want to track what you will be doing while digesting the kebab etc… In contrast buying a CD in 90’s was more like buying a food, but the price usually was too high. That grown into huge pirate software markets, like in eastern Europe. To extents like the other commenter said - “nobody ever will pay for software”.
prmoustache 1y ago
I think it depends on the demographic. I still see a lot of people who are afraid of purchasing on the internet and give out their card number. My mother in law ask her daughters to call her a uber when she needs one because she is afraid of installing the app and giving her credit card number[1]. Yet she has all the social medias installed on her smartphone. [1] The irony is she apparently don't care the her own daughters would have to take that risk for her.
- account42 1y ago
  > [1] The irony is she apparently don't care the her own daughters would have to take that risk for her. That's not a fair assessment. Maybe she simply thinks heir daughter will be better at not getting scammed and she could very well be right about that.
lugu 1y ago
IMO the problem of many platforms is that they don't let you "own" the software (whatever that means). Steam experience is closer to the feel of ownership because: - Most games don't just randomly upgrade. They are stable. - Steam is cross platform enough that you can use the software on different devices as if you were copying it. - Your steam account isn't the center of your digital life, it's access isn't subject to many associated risks.
- latexr 1y ago
  I don’t buy that justification, most people have never and will never spare a thought for “software ownership”. I’d bet the truth is closer to “people don’t see games as software, but as entertainment. Paying for them is no different to paying to go to the movies, buy a song on iTunes, use Spotify, or Netflix”. Apps (“software”) and games are fundamentally different in the public’s perception. Look at the App Store, it has two different tabs for games and Apple is even making a separate app for them.
  - account42 1y ago
    People aren't willing to pay for mobile games any more than for other apps.
    - latexr 1y ago
      It’s curious that you had to specify mobile games. That seems to indicate you understand those are their own class of product (often more slot machine with extra steps than software or game) than what the conversation is about (Steam, thus desktop games). The App Store—which, by the way, I was thinking of the one on the Mac—was merely an example to represent how companies understand and separate games from other software. I could’ve also made the point of games being seen as entertainment rather than software by pointing out Netflix has movies, TV shows, and games, but not other apps.
- zelphirkalt 1y ago
  The accumulated loss, if some people lost their access to Steam is huge though. For some people that's thousands of euros.

emseetech 1y ago

Also, do people not pay for it because there are still so many free competing services? If everything goes the way of ads and (for lack of a better term) enshittification, could consumer attitudes change?

bitmasher9 1y ago
There is a market for paid software services with a promise of not enshittifying. Kagi and Fastmail are two examples. Now, this market probably isn’t going to put you in the Fortune 500, but is enough to run a profitable business.
- account42 1y ago
  The problem is that there is also tons of services that promised not to enshittify but then changed their minds when they thought that fucking over their users would be more profitable. That includes even Google, look up their early views on ads. Because of this those promises are often (IMO rightfully) ignored as hot air. The only way to ensure that your software doesn't get enshittified is to legally guarantee that you are not dependent on a single vendor for future development - the most effective way to do that is insist on open source software.
  - bitmasher9 1y ago
    Yeah I love open source. Daily Linux desktop user and open source code contributor here. Open source doesn’t solve the problem “I need to be able to search the entire internet for a document.” Even “I want to safely receive email” is a challenge to do with open source software. At some point I need to use software as a service, and at that point I’d prefer to give money to the service directly than having the service target advertising at me.
  - emseetech 1y ago
    That's not the only way. Wikipedia has avoided it through a non-profit, donation and volunteer based structure.

Groxx 1y ago

>Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason. Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable. Quite a lot of paid software does not meet that bar. It's far more likely to both cost you money and waste a few hours (much longer than that food demanded, unless you got food poisoning). I generally agree it's far out of balance, but I do think it's broadly understandable.

eddythompson80 1y ago
> Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable. That's not even remotely close to being true. Plenty of people would order a $25 dish at a place and not like it. Not finishing the dish, or throwing a way a half eaten candy bar or bad-tasting-$6-cup of coffee is very normal. Plenty of (if most) food is meh or not enjoyable. It just serves a purpose and fills you and you move on.
- Groxx 1y ago
  If you're routinely buying and throwing out $25 plates of food, then you're in a different income bracket than many people. And then, yes, avoiding a $3 app is more nonsensical than for most.
  - eddythompson80 1y ago
    No one said you’re routinely doing it. It just happens for thing at orders of magnitude higher than what can be asked for software. One bad coffee, or meal or a %20 tip on a $40 order of pizza is far more than the 1.99 or 3.99 software can ask for, and it’s still too much. Tipping $5 or a $10 is not a big deal, but a $1.99 app is like “ooof, is there like a free version?” It’s not even a blanket statement on software. gamers have shown they are willing to pay, though their money comes with strings attached. Mac users are more willing to pay than Windows users who are more willing to pay than Linux users.
    - 1y ago

whoisyc 1y ago

Thanks to Australian customer protection laws, Steam has some of the most lenient refund policies among digital software stores. You can usually get a full refund if your play time is less than a few hours. Plus there are frequent sales. Don’t underestimate the psychological impact of making people feel “I have to buy this now or the deal will be gone.” I genuinely do not know how to get a refund from the google play store or the apple equivalent. (The downside of the Steam policy is it makes Steam unviable for games that can be played in full very quickly. Develops can also game the system by dragging out early game so the player is over the refundable time by the time they reach the rough parts. But this is for another discussion.)

Shaanie 1y ago
There's no problem getting a refund for apps in my experience, I've done it a handful of times when I've changed my mind and it was easy and fully automated.
- latexr 1y ago
  Anecdotally, as a counterpoint, I asked for refunds on the iOS App Store maybe twice in a row and since then every purchase was met with a dialog where I had to confirm I waved my right to a refund. This was over a decade ago, so may be very outdated. I don’t even think in-app purchases were yet a thing. I wasn’t trying to abuse the apps (I pay for software) and was in fact trying to use the refund policy to allow me to buy more apps because I could test without the fear of paying for duds. Their policy had the opposite effect and I basically stopped buying on the App Store.
SkiFire13 1y ago
> Thanks to Australian customer protection laws Source? I always thought this was a general Steam policy, as it's available pretty much anywhere.
notpushkin 1y ago
> Thanks to Australian customer protection laws, Steam has some of the most lenient refund policies among digital software stores. You can usually get a full refund if your play time is less than a few hours. I think it’s actually worldwide?

keiferski 1y ago

I think it is because humans spent thousands, tens of thousands of years not doing much other than searching for food and trading one physical object for another physical object. The idea of trading something valuable for an abstract piece of software or paper is still not really natural to us, and is a learned behavior.

parineum 1y ago
I buy almost everything with a piece of plastic that represents a company who's agreed to lend me money that represents absolutely nothing except the common agreement that it's valuable.
- keiferski 1y ago
  Yes and credit cards are a learned behavior, not an instinctual thing - and I think not buying an app for $1 is largely based on instinct.
  - pmontra 1y ago
    People instinctively or factually know that there are other apps that do basically the same thing for free. It's the case for messaging apps and for almost any other kind of app. It's hard to beat the price point of a free app, even if it might include tracking, advertising, spying inside their package. If WhatsApp would start asking for money hundreds of millions of people would switch to something else in a few days, even to a free app created overnight to capitalize on the opportunity.
chgs 1y ago
On the other hand paying for service is the oldest profession going
- keiferski 1y ago
  Yep and the success of SAAS compared to low cost, buy it once software (like apps) is a testament to that.

azherebtsov 1y ago

Maybe one of the reasons is that buying software in general case is more complicated. Kebab around the corner does not ask you for credit card details, delivery address, probably will not want to track what you will be doing while digesting the kebab etc… In contrast buying a CD in 90’s was more like buying a food, but the price usually was too high. That grown into huge pirate software markets, like in eastern Europe. To extents like the other commenter said - “nobody ever will pay for software”.

prmoustache 1y ago

I think it depends on the demographic. I still see a lot of people who are afraid of purchasing on the internet and give out their card number. My mother in law ask her daughters to call her a uber when she needs one because she is afraid of installing the app and giving her credit card number[1]. Yet she has all the social medias installed on her smartphone. [1] The irony is she apparently don't care the her own daughters would have to take that risk for her.

account42 1y ago
> [1] The irony is she apparently don't care the her own daughters would have to take that risk for her. That's not a fair assessment. Maybe she simply thinks heir daughter will be better at not getting scammed and she could very well be right about that.

lugu 1y ago

IMO the problem of many platforms is that they don't let you "own" the software (whatever that means). Steam experience is closer to the feel of ownership because: - Most games don't just randomly upgrade. They are stable. - Steam is cross platform enough that you can use the software on different devices as if you were copying it. - Your steam account isn't the center of your digital life, it's access isn't subject to many associated risks.

latexr 1y ago
I don’t buy that justification, most people have never and will never spare a thought for “software ownership”. I’d bet the truth is closer to “people don’t see games as software, but as entertainment. Paying for them is no different to paying to go to the movies, buy a song on iTunes, use Spotify, or Netflix”. Apps (“software”) and games are fundamentally different in the public’s perception. Look at the App Store, it has two different tabs for games and Apple is even making a separate app for them.
- account42 1y ago
  People aren't willing to pay for mobile games any more than for other apps.
  - latexr 1y ago
    It’s curious that you had to specify mobile games. That seems to indicate you understand those are their own class of product (often more slot machine with extra steps than software or game) than what the conversation is about (Steam, thus desktop games). The App Store—which, by the way, I was thinking of the one on the Mac—was merely an example to represent how companies understand and separate games from other software. I could’ve also made the point of games being seen as entertainment rather than software by pointing out Netflix has movies, TV shows, and games, but not other apps.
zelphirkalt 1y ago
The accumulated loss, if some people lost their access to Steam is huge though. For some people that's thousands of euros.