9 ms·
Why is Tweetbot for Mac $20?
- rockarage 14y agoThe irony of this is ever since I got tweetbot for my ipad, I stoped using twitter on my Mac.
- bluetidepro 14y agoTweetbot seems really awesome and I realize they explain why it is worth the $20, but I still think it's too pricey. And I don't think that because of Tweetbot, I think that because of Twitter. I'm more worried with all the sporadic changes Twitter is making lately that they could somehow do something to make Tweetbot useless. Maybe by not allowing 3rd party apps or something. Who knows? And because of that, I don't want to risk wasting $20. It's sort of like how people felt with the "Elevation Dock" on the iPhone. They got it for their iPhone 4's and then it basically became just a paperweight when the 5 came out (I realize they made a crumby adapter to make it work with the iPhone 5). I guess, all in all, it just bums me out that awesome products (like Tweetbot) could potentially have a great product like this ruined by 1 small decision Twitter makes. And I just don't think I want to waste $20 on that bet (especially when the Twitter site UI/UX isn't THAT bad to use). /2 cents
- CyberMonk 14y agoEven if the app is only around and viable for a year, if you use it every day, is it really so hard to justify spending $20 on it? I'm really glad we have companies like Tapbots, Panic, etc., pushing against the "race to the bottom" trend with app prices that we've seen lately. Good apps are HARD to do, and there's no reason they shouldn't command a price commensurate with the effort involved.
- bluetidepro 14y ago>Even if the app is only around and viable for a year, if you use it every day, is it really so hard to justify spending $20 on it? That's exactly what I'm worried about. It COULD be a year (and in that case, yes, it would be worth it), but no one can guarantee that. It could be tomorrow for all we know. And that is why I say it's a gamble I don't really want to take on a social networking app (no matter how nice the UI/UX is). It's worth more to me to just use the browser Twitter app (has a few flaws but isn't THAT bad) for free then take a huge risk with $20.
- msbarnett 14y ago> That's exactly what I'm worried about. It COULD be a year (and in that case, yes, it would be worth it), but no one can guarantee that. It could be tomorrow for all we know. If they stopped supporting it tomorrow, it wouldn't disappear from your device. The earliest it would possibly break would be in the next major OS upgrade. Y'know, in about a year. The idea that a measly $20 is too much to pay for months of engineering and design work up to now, let alone going forward, is utterly absurd. I'd expect it from Joe Random Entitled-Guy, but I'd expect a higher standard from HN, where presumably the sentiment is that devs ought to be able to subsist above the poverty line.
- bluetidepro 14y ago> If they stopped supporting it tomorrow, it wouldn't disappear from your device. The earliest it would possibly break would be in the next major OS upgrade. That's not true at all. Twitter could revoke their API access or something that could break it tomorrow. Yes the actual app may still be on my device but nothing says it will actually still be able to work. That is all in Twitter's hands. > The idea that a measly $20 is too much to pay for months of engineering and design work up to now, let alone going forward, is utterly absurd. That is their decision to make this bet. If I were to spend years and years making the perfect toaster and I charge $1,000 for it (to pay for the engineering and design work), you're saying it's absurd NOT to buy it? It's actually the opposite. It's absurd to assume that just because someone puts engineering and design into a product, that it automatically makes the product worth X price.
- msbarnett 14y ago> If I were to spend years and years making the perfect toaster and I charge $1,000 for it (to pay for the engineering and design work), you're saying it's absurd NOT to buy it? It's never absurd to choose not to buy anything. But your analogy gets in the way of what is absurd. We're not talking about charging $1000 dollars (the same price as a nice laptop, a middling DSLR, or a crappy used car) for a toaster. We're talking about $20 (the same price as a delivered pizza, a middling steak, and less than two tickets for an hour and a half movie) for a polished piece of software. What's absurd is asserting that that's too much to ask for the product of months of engineering and design work. You certainly don't have to buy it! It's totally ok if it's not worth $20 of your money, to you. But asserting that the authors ought to value their work less than a pizza, that they're doing something wrong by asking a not-unreasonable pizza-money price for it, is entitled, race-to-the-bottom mentality crap. Engineers are expensive, iOS engineers doubly so. This meme that their work is worth less than a candy bar, let alone a pizza, is a toxic devaluation of the worth of every engineer working in the software field coda: They're currently both the #2 paid app and #2 top-grossing app in the App Store, so the demand is certainly there at $20. Devaluing their work by launching at less would have accomplished nothing but leaving money on the table.
- LeeUmm 14y agoI thought it would be at the $9.99 price point, like Sparrow was. I am surprised by it being $20, but I understand given the limitations and will purchase it. What happens to the tokens when people pirate this app? Does it count towards their limit?
- Skroob 14y ago"What happens to the tokens when people pirate this app? Does it count towards their limit?" Almost definitely.
- msbarnett 14y ago> What happens to the tokens when people pirate this app? Does it count towards their limit? Yeah. There's no way for Twitter to tell them apart.
- jakejake 14y agoHow I would think that it should work is the client downloads your token when you register the software. If you decide to share your license, the more people who use your token, the more likely that token will hit the 1,000 per day / 350 requests per hour limit on the twitter API. If you were to post your registration info on a sharing site you could effectively make that token useless for you and everybody else who was trying to use it. If somebody figures out how to trick the registration to get free API tokens on the other hand, that would be really bad for the company.
- PanMan 14y agoSo, they aim for max 1.4 million in revenue (100k x $20 - 30% for apple, minus an unknown amount for beta testers) for the lifetime of the app. How many people have worked on it? It does show the limited upside of twitter apps under the new rules(yes, 1.4 million is still a lot of money, but no home run for a company).
- andrewmunsell 14y agoThey have a limit over 100k (2x their current user base) IIRC, since they already have 100k+ users on Tweetbot.
- masklinn 14y agoTokens are per-application. So they do not have "a limit over 100k", they have a limit of 100k on "Tweetbot for Mac". Which is a completely separate limit than the one for Tweetbot on iOS.
- zefhous 14y agoThe Tweetbot for Mac alpha was already out before the limit was announced, I would bet they already had way more than 100k tokens registered at the API limit announcement. Tapbots has >135,000 twitter followers. They had significant exposure from many other sources too, like Daring Fireball which has >400,000 Mac + Twitter using RSS subscribers. Early adopters are more likely to have multiple twitter accounts as well, so they would have already registered multiple tokens.
- andrewmunsell 14y agoIn a blog post they said, "Our user cap for Tweetbot for Mac is also large and we don’t expect any problems given the smaller market", which sounds like it's the double-user cap, not 100k.
- eykanal 14y agoThere have been many discussions here on Hacker News about the risks inherent in building your product—and hence livelihood—on top of someone else's platform, over which you have no control. Unfortunately for Tweetbot, this sort of complaint will possibly strike a chord with the almost negligible minority that would read a tech blog, and of those, an even smaller and more negligible minority will actually complain to Twitter. Twitter is putting these guys out of business, and it's completely in their (Twitter's) right to do so. Playing the blame game may feel good but it won't solve anything; the hard work these guys put in is likely going to quickly stop being a viable source of revenue, and there's nothing they can do about it. I can't think of anything to say about it other than it's a real damned shame.
- n9com 14y agowelcome to the world of business.
- zupreme 14y agoThis, and other actions like it, are only going to drive more people to the underground bot/warez economy wherein terms of use and official API channels don't apply. unfortunately in that world many of the tools also compromise user security as well. Unless Twitter, and other widely adopted platform providers, find a balance between corporate interests and supporting users interacting with their services in the ways that they prefer to do so, we will see more and more people obtaining Tweet-bots and Friend-adders, from illegitimate sources which bypass API's altogether.
- taylonr 14y agoI doubt it. In fact, I think of the majority of the people I know if they were to try and download Tweetbot and couldn't, they'll be mad at Tweetbot. Even if Tweetbot states something like "Twitter has limited the number of clients we can sell" they'll still think Tweetbot is stupid. But most of them won't think "I wonder if there is a way around this." And then head to some warez type solution. Instead they'll look and see if there is an alternative, or more likely, just stick with Twitter's website. I just don't buy the "This will drive people to pirated software" argument.
- utopkara 14y agoThe limited number of tokens argument for inflated price doesn't make sense for standalone apps. It is very much possible that people get their own developer tokens from twitter. Perhaps, you could provide a lower price tier for such cases.
- briandear 14y agoDevelopers aren't their target audience.
- jusben1369 14y agoFunnily enough I wonder if they would have gotten more flack if they had just auctioned off the 100,000 licenses and see what the market would handle? I suspect they may have gotten more than $20 each and there would be less complaining as it's a totally transparent process.
- n9com 14y agoThis probably makes more sense and they wouldn't have needed to give up a 30% cut to Apple. Right now, I don't see how they will be able to continue to update the app once they hit 100,000 users whilst preventing the app from being purchased by new users via the Mac App Store. In order to offer updates via the MAS, your app needs to be available to sale to new customers.
- briandear 14y agoThey could just raise the price to $1000 once they get close to the token limit.
- mikeash 14y agoOr just make it free, since it's no longer useful for new users.
- kaisdavis 14y agoThat's incorrect. I believe I heard this via Cable on John Gruber's 'The Talk Show,' but you can still have an app in the MAS and provide updates even if the app is not available for sale.
- toyg 14y agoThat's what I said in comments on the page -- they could have gone for a mix of eBay and Humble Indie Bundle: offer what you want, and the best 100.000 get in. Tweetbot is currently 2nd in the Top Paid and Top Grossing store charts, behind only OSX Mountain Lion. Those $1.4m will be in the bank in a few days. People didn't balk at the price one bit; I thought about it for a few minutes, and then went f#ck it, it's the only program good enough to make me tolerate Twitter, and devs gotta eat. I suspect for some power user, $50 or even $100 would have been fair game.
- kmfrk 14y agoAm I the only one smiling at seeing the equivalent of limited-edition software in the year 2012? Twitter is weird.
- negativity 14y agoI'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this is beyond absurd. Really, now. It's on the level of: PAYING for ELECTRONIC "BOOK" "RENTALS" Think about that. Royalties, intellectual property, and blah blah blah aside... They insist on implying that you're "renting" electronic signals. They don't want you to think in terms of paying an ISP for a connection (service), and then the transmission (bandwidth), AND THEN THE CONTENT (the "book") ON TOP OF ALL THAT. You could just KEEP the "book" forever, with virtualized backups if you really wanted to. And can't we just dispose of the "book" euphemisms too? What you're really paying for is a brokered decryption of information. Gee, thanks for brightening up that reality with all the duckspeak, marketing. It's just bits. Induced magnetic fields on a metal platter. Energized wires in an integrated circuit. I mean I guess you could take the view that we all "rent" beer, in a certain wry sense. But that's like when inmates rationalize that everyone's in a "prison" somehow, or when prostitutes rationalize that all house-wives are essentially "prostitutes" with a different name. Seriously. Paying for a Twitter interface? You can just use the website. For free. $20 is like 4 hours of work for someone who're making minimum wage.
- negativity 14y agoOh, wait. I'm sorry I was thinking about an even sillier premise: "BORROWING" ELECTRONIC "BOOKS" and then "RETURNING" THEM, or else YOU PAY "LATE" FEES. Someone actually mentioned that idea to me, when we were discussing how the free public library system was imploding in wake of pervasive digital media. I conceded that, yeah, it's kind of sad, but then I just shrugged and changed the subject.
- deveac 14y agoThey say their plan is to both release it for profit and continue to support it, all under the constraint of a limited number of user tokens provided to them by Twitter. I wonder if they considered a subscription option instead of a one time payment. A lower subscription price (say a dollar a month) might have sounded good to users psychologically, kept a revenue stream going for the stated future development, and offered the potential for recapture of user tokens as users drop out of their ecosystem over time for whatever reason, which they could then convert to revenue again. I really have to imagine that they at least considered it, -I'd love to know why they decided against it.
- bbatsell 14y agoTwitter does not allow the keyholder to revoke tokens; only individual users can do that. It would be impossible for Tapbots to reclaim unused/unpaid tokens. (Which is why they beg users of the alpha to dissociate Tweetbot in their control panel if they don't plan on buying the app.)
- nicholassmith 14y agoI really want to buy it, and I don't even mind $20 that much but given that they've got so few tokens I'm actually going to leave it for someone who uses Twitter on the desktop way more than I would. I think it's a reasonable price given the situation.
- dfxm12 14y agoCan you imagine if everyone felt the exact same way you do? I suggest you buy it if you really want to.
- janaboruta 14y agoI would happily pay $20 for Tweetbot. It's a great app: well designed, easy to use, intuitive.
- danilocampos 14y agoWhy is it $20? Because it's worth that much. I didn't even give it any thought – I just hit the purchase button the moment I read I could. They shouldn't have written this with the sheepish, question-marked headline. They don't need to apologize or feel bashful, though I get why they would. It's a great desktop app. It costs what it costs. Anyone who doesn't like that is just leaving more tokens for the rest of us.
- GavinB 14y agoI interpreted this as largely a protest in the hopes of getting Twitter's token policy changed. It seems very odd that they can get 100,000 tokens for free but can't pay for more.
- danilocampos 14y agoThat's reasonable. And I agree it's odd. Why should Twitter care if 20% of their userbase is on third party clients with an experience that's not on-brand, if those clients pay a per-user fee? One explanation: not all users are created equal. It could be that the 20% who use third party clients are more/most engaged. Lassoing them back into the fold could have some strategic benefit.
- Encosia 14y agoTwitter can't enforce a "consistent experience" on third party clients, meaning they can't be sure that promoted tweets, accounts, and other forms of generally unwanted advertising will show up in timelines that aren't rendered with Twitter's own code.
- beedogs 14y agoSeems to me like this will be the reason Twitter fades away and dies eventually.
- ChrisLTD 14y agoThey can revoke access for clients that don't comply with the display guidelines. They probably don't want to be in the business of policing 3rd parties like that, but they have the power if they want to use it.
- bitcartel 14y agoOnce upon a time you didn't have to justify your pricing. Thanks App Store.
- bsg75 14y agoWhy is the pricing of this an App Store issue? I prefer Yorufukurou over over the other clients I have tried, and its free on the App Store or the developer's site.
- jinushaun 14y agoBecause the App Store devalued the price of software. $0.99 was not normal before 2008. You can't build and maintain great software on $0.99.
- unreal37 14y agoI thought the 100,000 limit was just the limit for free tokens - "you have to talk to us". I mean, if Twitter is willing to sell tokens at $2 each, then Tapbot can sell this app forever giving Twitter their cut. I also find it ironic that the app maker has to ask beta testers to revoke access to free up tokens for others.
- notatoad 14y ago>I thought the 100,000 limit was just the limit for free tokens - "you have to talk to us". That's what twitter's API announcement says. It seems really disrespectful of tapbot to be unwilling to pay twitter anything when they're charging their users $20. If this is the app maker's attitude toward the service they are building their business on top of, i can understand why twitter wants to crack down on their API consumers.
- paulsilver 14y agoI'm interested to see that developers aren't trusting Twitter when they said if you got close to your token limit you'd be able to apply to them to raise the limit. On reflection, given their recent behaviour as a company I can understand that.
- jlmendezbonini 14y agoQuickly skimming through the comments turned to be somewhat informative. Note that some are partial quotes from larger comments. The ones that I found more interesting are: - "The same price as my operating system. Later guys, it’s been fun." While I understand his/her reasoning I disagree because it's a very deceiving comparison. - "I love tweetbot, and I know tapbots won’t care, but I can’t afford to buy $20 for something that performs one function, which I can already get on my phone, and the same basic data from other clients and even twitter.com." I wouldn't go as far to say that it performs just one function but I can understand what (s)he means. - "The worst thing the App Store did was to devalue software. I write it for a living, I know the time and energy that goes in to building a good piece of software, and asking to be paid for that work is not evil." - "I’d pay $100 for Tweetbot for Mac. Anyone who whines about $20 has clearly never written a piece of software." - "Don’t get me wrong, I bought it. I’am a software developer too, so I know how much work you had to put into it. But still, it’s too much. Especially in Poland, where I live. Especially if you compare it to other Twitter clients, or software in MAS in general. Especially, if you consider that the future of the software is not safe (because of Twitter limitations)." I guess we, developers, are always more understanding when it comes to the amount of effort required to create great software. However, you can apply that same stament to many other professions (shoemakers and shoes, etc) EDIT: Formatting
- ruswick 14y agoI don't think the "I'll pay anything" guys make valid points. Most people do not judge the reasonability of a price on the amount of work that is put into a product. (Nor should they.) When one purchases something, they ought to evaluate the value of a product solely on the utility that they gain from that product and how that compares to the utility and price of similar products. Tweetbot is working against the precedent set by other apps in this regard. It yields near-negligible utility over free alternatives and competes in an ecosystem dominated by free apps. (If anything, it yields less utility over others, because once the token threshold is met, it will in all likelihood become abandon-ware.) Thus the value of Tweetbot— and of software in general— goes down. The work put in by the developers has no weight in determining the price. The market's tolerance, perception of value, and willingness to pay is the only factor. Even if I spend 10,000 hours making a great latte, it's unreasonable that I charge $1m for it because my competitors are selling a similar product at $4 and the increase in utility of my latte versus theirs is likely not enough to warrant the increase in cost to the consumer. Their logic is flawed and is totally incongruous with the most fundamental concepts of economics. Commerce is a quid pro quo, not a charitable donation. I don't, however, believe that such a high price is a knock against TapBots. They are permitted to charge whatever they like. You really can't fault them for price-gouging: Everyone loves money. The desire to get more of it is something that is not only reasonable, but is lauded in a capitalist economy. I find it doubtful that many people think ill of TapBots for their pricing. Rather, the issue lies in the fact that their app does relatively little yet has an incredibly inflated and anomalous price that deviates from the norm. The motives are reasonable, but the price isn't. As for me, I won't be buying TweetBot. It's more money than I can reasonably afford. Even if it weren't, it's price simply outpaces it's value to such an extent as to be unjustifiable.
- abbott 14y agoTwitter does not want to provide the opportunity to empower 3rd parties to become so large that they have to acquire them. After tweet deck, this has become the driving principal. If twitter restricts platform usage, then they don't have to worry about that happening again. That is the answer.