3 ms·

While I can understand what you are saying in theory, 1.99 or 2.99 is not in fact significantly higher. it's a dollar. 1/4 a cup of coffee. I know we've had the

While I can understand what you are saying in theory, 1.99 or 2.99 is not in fact significantly higher. it's a dollar. 1/4 a cup of coffee. I know we've had these discussions before and it's not coffee blah blah blah. But come on, "significantly higher." It's just not. The thing is, apps are priced as they are because of risk. In general, apps are worth either 0 or significantly higher than a dollar. If it turns out you don't like it and you don't use it, then it's worth absolutely nothing. On the other hand, if you like it and end up using it all the time, it's worth far far more than $1. If you already know you like an app because you've used it on another platform, or tried a trial or demo version, spending 1.99 or 2.99 really shouldn't be much of a hurdle. Also, I suspect those devs started out at the same price point, and when they sold 1-5% of what they do on iOS or Android they decided to raise the price.

freehunter 14y ago
$3 vs $1 is a 300% price increase. No matter how small the actual amount is, that's how it shows. We're paying a 300% markup. I mentioned that this is likely due to risk, then went on to say that this risk mitigation sometimes ends up causing more damage than it helps. Raising the price doesn't always make more money, sometimes it just decreases sales. I didn't set the standard price for apps. The market did. Is software worth more than 99c? Sure. But that's the standard price for a standard app. $3 is seen as a major hurdle. Some big-name publishers are putting out Pac Man and Galaga etc at $7 on Windows Phone. The reviews section is full of "this is way too expensive, I'm just playing the demo over again". I have paid $15 for an app, but not many people will. If you want to sell, you need to price it at an appetizing rate. $3 is fine if you can justify it to the market and it's a fair price. Telling users "your platform is more expensive to develop for" will get the developer nowhere. It's basic economics. Valve even did an analysis that is posted occasionally here on HN showing that their profits went up when they reduced prices. I've heard some developers say that their ad revenue on free apps is more than their sales revenue on paid apps, regardless of the platform. Whatever the reason, if you think that dollar or two difference is insignificant, read the reviews of some WP apps with a price differential between marketplaces.

freehunter 14y ago

$3 vs $1 is a 300% price increase. No matter how small the actual amount is, that's how it shows. We're paying a 300% markup. I mentioned that this is likely due to risk, then went on to say that this risk mitigation sometimes ends up causing more damage than it helps. Raising the price doesn't always make more money, sometimes it just decreases sales. I didn't set the standard price for apps. The market did. Is software worth more than 99c? Sure. But that's the standard price for a standard app. $3 is seen as a major hurdle. Some big-name publishers are putting out Pac Man and Galaga etc at $7 on Windows Phone. The reviews section is full of "this is way too expensive, I'm just playing the demo over again". I have paid $15 for an app, but not many people will. If you want to sell, you need to price it at an appetizing rate. $3 is fine if you can justify it to the market and it's a fair price. Telling users "your platform is more expensive to develop for" will get the developer nowhere. It's basic economics. Valve even did an analysis that is posted occasionally here on HN showing that their profits went up when they reduced prices. I've heard some developers say that their ad revenue on free apps is more than their sales revenue on paid apps, regardless of the platform. Whatever the reason, if you think that dollar or two difference is insignificant, read the reviews of some WP apps with a price differential between marketplaces.