3 ms·

On an earlier post they describe how they came up with the pricing for their products - "Just think to yourself what you'd pay". Well, for myself, and a fair nu

by axod 18y ago

On an earlier post they describe how they came up with the pricing for their products - "Just think to yourself what you'd pay". Well, for myself, and a fair number of others, that figure is 0. So you have to think of other ways to make money. Clearly no one would ever pay to be able to use google to search, yet we all value it enormously.

josefresco 18y ago
I think their point of losing faith is demonstrated by your last line: "...Clearly no one would ever pay..." Is that clear? Are we certain no one would pay a small monthly fee to use Google? What if it was tacked on to your high speed Internet bill? Having faith in charging is realizing you will and CAN lose 95% of your audience and still make a decent living, simply by charging.
- axod 18y ago
  You make a good point. I was actually going to edit my post but for some reason it didn't let me. If it was a simple case of having something tacked onto my ISP bill, then I'd be far more likely to pay for things. I think that's an area ripe for development. Why ISPs haven't attacked it yet I don't know. Ad supported is still a pretty good model though and will be around forever. It does depend on who your users are though.
  - emmett 18y ago
    Because ISPs are terrible at picking winning technologies that are worth paying for. If they provided all their users with a search engine 10 years ago, it wouldn't have been google, it would have been some lame competitor.
    - swombat 18y ago
      On the other hand, perhaps they could get together to sort out a standardised payment method that would make paying for stuff online as easy as it is to purchase an iPhone app. No doubt, this would make them loads money and allow many more sites to charge money from their users.
      - axod 18y ago
        Right. It just needs to be a generic payment system. Much as we had premium rate dial up ISPs for a while to access porn (Apparently). It could just be a very simple setup: 1. webapp notices you're on ISP A 2. webapp asks ISP A to bill you $3/month 3. you get an email from your ISP asking for authorization 4. you click the link and it's added to your bill
        chadmalik 18y ago
        For your consideration, PayPal subscriptions service: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/xcl/rec/subscr-intro-outside https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/xcl/rec/subscr-i... It works just fine and no need to get the thousands of ISPs that exist involved, which is incredibly messy.
        axod 18y ago
        Sure, but the user still has to have paypal setup, credit card, etc. Going the ISP route is far cleaner, since they already have a billing relationship with the customer.
        tannerburson 18y ago
        But this falls flat once you remove the assumption that a user only accesses the internet from a single ISP. So what happens when I decide to make that purchase on my lunch break at work? Or from the free wifi at the coffee shop? There was a time that this would have worked, but I think there are too many people that aren't tied to a single physical location for their internet services. And we haven't all switched to something provided by a cell company.
tptacek 18y ago
I'm sorry, what? If the options were "Google for $5 a year vs. Altavista", you think Google wouldn't have still have gone public? Clearly, Google had better ways to make money; when you have something as excellent as Google, you have options. But don't take as your thesis that "even Google had to go free".
- axod 18y ago
  $5 a year is a ridiculously low income when compared to advertising. I seriously doubt google would still be around if they had tried to charge users to search the web. Altavista wasn't that bad. I'm simply pointing out that some services don't really work too well as a 'paid' model. Also you've got the fact that some of your competition is going to be free. If you want to now charge users directly, you have to be at least 10 times as good, or be offering something seriously different to make them pay. I'm still firmly in the freemium camp. 1. Make something, get people to use it 2. Grow, make profit from advertising (Stay lean, keep costs low) 3. Once you're big enough, some subset of your users will be willing to pay for extra features If you instead go for paid only, I don't think you can reach anywhere near the same audience.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Google has over 128MM users. Assume Google just gets the "really amazing product" conversation rate of 10%; at $5/year, that's a recurring revenue stream of $64MM/yr, at the lowest conceivable price point you can come up with for a good product. "But $64MM is fuck-all compared to the billions it makes now!" Of course that's true, but that's besides the point. Almost any product company number is going to suck compared to what Google can post now. I'm not arguing that Google should be a free service. I'm saying they had options, and it wasn't necessarily between "free or die".
    - axod 18y ago
      The figure of 10% conversion rate seems pretty high to me. I'd expect something more like 0.1%. People expect things like 'search the web' to be free.
mixmax 18y ago
"Clearly no one would ever pay to be able to use google to search" - So if Google started charging you a dollar a month tommorrow you would gladly start using Altavista instead? I Don't think it's quite that clear.
- axod 18y ago
  If they did that, a competitor would quickly emerge that was free and of comparable quality, and ad supported. The fact is though, they make far more from advertising than they could ever hope to make charging.
  - jshen 18y ago
    It's easy to find exceptional cases to anything, and it means nothing.
run4yourlives 18y ago
Are you kidding me? Perhaps it's your own personal situation, but I would certainly pay for something as high quality as google is. Hell, I pay for fricken cable TV, and google is much more valuable than hockey games and the the odd HBO drama. I think if you're going to ask "What would I pay for this?" you have to be honest with yourself and with your product. Are you the only guy you know without a cellphone? Are you living everyday on Ramen? Sometimes, "you" needs to be qualified. Assuming you are average though, it is a good start.
- axod 18y ago
  Sure, if it was an iPhone app, then definitely - people pay for it - it's easy. You just click. I'd probably pay something for a google iPhone app if it was good enough. The web doesn't have such luxuries. Payment on the web still pretty much sucks. Especially for low value recurring fees. With iPhone apps, you can pretty much trust Apple. They'll take your money and pass it on. If there's an issue, you take it up with Apple. Apple are the only ones who have your credit card number. That's why it works so well. We need something similar for the web, managed by the ISPs, if we're to make paid for content more viable.
  - chadmalik 18y ago
    Come on, PayPal works just fine. They even have recurring payments. Its silly to pretend theres "problems" with accepting payments on the web. Anybody can do it via PayPal.
    - axod 18y ago
      I didn't say it's not possible, but it's a massive hurdle for users.
russell 18y ago
I would pay $10/month, maybe even a lot more for a search engine that learned my interests. Fore example, if I say 'spring', I am not interested in soap, or perfume, or early season vacations. Or if it finds a match in a forum, it discounts posts that have no follow on. My list is quite long, but I could see paying $100/month if it saves me a few hours per month.

by axod 18y ago

josefresco 18y ago

I think their point of losing faith is demonstrated by your last line: "...Clearly no one would ever pay..." Is that clear? Are we certain no one would pay a small monthly fee to use Google? What if it was tacked on to your high speed Internet bill? Having faith in charging is realizing you will and CAN lose 95% of your audience and still make a decent living, simply by charging.

axod 18y ago
You make a good point. I was actually going to edit my post but for some reason it didn't let me. If it was a simple case of having something tacked onto my ISP bill, then I'd be far more likely to pay for things. I think that's an area ripe for development. Why ISPs haven't attacked it yet I don't know. Ad supported is still a pretty good model though and will be around forever. It does depend on who your users are though.
- emmett 18y ago
  Because ISPs are terrible at picking winning technologies that are worth paying for. If they provided all their users with a search engine 10 years ago, it wouldn't have been google, it would have been some lame competitor.
  - swombat 18y ago
    On the other hand, perhaps they could get together to sort out a standardised payment method that would make paying for stuff online as easy as it is to purchase an iPhone app. No doubt, this would make them loads money and allow many more sites to charge money from their users.
    - axod 18y ago
      Right. It just needs to be a generic payment system. Much as we had premium rate dial up ISPs for a while to access porn (Apparently). It could just be a very simple setup: 1. webapp notices you're on ISP A 2. webapp asks ISP A to bill you $3/month 3. you get an email from your ISP asking for authorization 4. you click the link and it's added to your bill
      - chadmalik 18y ago
        For your consideration, PayPal subscriptions service: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/xcl/rec/subscr-intro-outside https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/xcl/rec/subscr-i... It works just fine and no need to get the thousands of ISPs that exist involved, which is incredibly messy.
        axod 18y ago
        Sure, but the user still has to have paypal setup, credit card, etc. Going the ISP route is far cleaner, since they already have a billing relationship with the customer.
      - tannerburson 18y ago
        But this falls flat once you remove the assumption that a user only accesses the internet from a single ISP. So what happens when I decide to make that purchase on my lunch break at work? Or from the free wifi at the coffee shop? There was a time that this would have worked, but I think there are too many people that aren't tied to a single physical location for their internet services. And we haven't all switched to something provided by a cell company.

tptacek 18y ago

I'm sorry, what? If the options were "Google for $5 a year vs. Altavista", you think Google wouldn't have still have gone public? Clearly, Google had better ways to make money; when you have something as excellent as Google, you have options. But don't take as your thesis that "even Google had to go free".

axod 18y ago
$5 a year is a ridiculously low income when compared to advertising. I seriously doubt google would still be around if they had tried to charge users to search the web. Altavista wasn't that bad. I'm simply pointing out that some services don't really work too well as a 'paid' model. Also you've got the fact that some of your competition is going to be free. If you want to now charge users directly, you have to be at least 10 times as good, or be offering something seriously different to make them pay. I'm still firmly in the freemium camp. 1. Make something, get people to use it 2. Grow, make profit from advertising (Stay lean, keep costs low) 3. Once you're big enough, some subset of your users will be willing to pay for extra features If you instead go for paid only, I don't think you can reach anywhere near the same audience.
- tptacek 18y ago
  Google has over 128MM users. Assume Google just gets the "really amazing product" conversation rate of 10%; at $5/year, that's a recurring revenue stream of $64MM/yr, at the lowest conceivable price point you can come up with for a good product. "But $64MM is fuck-all compared to the billions it makes now!" Of course that's true, but that's besides the point. Almost any product company number is going to suck compared to what Google can post now. I'm not arguing that Google should be a free service. I'm saying they had options, and it wasn't necessarily between "free or die".
  - axod 18y ago
    The figure of 10% conversion rate seems pretty high to me. I'd expect something more like 0.1%. People expect things like 'search the web' to be free.

mixmax 18y ago

"Clearly no one would ever pay to be able to use google to search" - So if Google started charging you a dollar a month tommorrow you would gladly start using Altavista instead? I Don't think it's quite that clear.

axod 18y ago
If they did that, a competitor would quickly emerge that was free and of comparable quality, and ad supported. The fact is though, they make far more from advertising than they could ever hope to make charging.
- jshen 18y ago
  It's easy to find exceptional cases to anything, and it means nothing.

run4yourlives 18y ago

Are you kidding me? Perhaps it's your own personal situation, but I would certainly pay for something as high quality as google is. Hell, I pay for fricken cable TV, and google is much more valuable than hockey games and the the odd HBO drama. I think if you're going to ask "What would I pay for this?" you have to be honest with yourself and with your product. Are you the only guy you know without a cellphone? Are you living everyday on Ramen? Sometimes, "you" needs to be qualified. Assuming you are average though, it is a good start.

axod 18y ago
Sure, if it was an iPhone app, then definitely - people pay for it - it's easy. You just click. I'd probably pay something for a google iPhone app if it was good enough. The web doesn't have such luxuries. Payment on the web still pretty much sucks. Especially for low value recurring fees. With iPhone apps, you can pretty much trust Apple. They'll take your money and pass it on. If there's an issue, you take it up with Apple. Apple are the only ones who have your credit card number. That's why it works so well. We need something similar for the web, managed by the ISPs, if we're to make paid for content more viable.
- chadmalik 18y ago
  Come on, PayPal works just fine. They even have recurring payments. Its silly to pretend theres "problems" with accepting payments on the web. Anybody can do it via PayPal.
  - axod 18y ago
    I didn't say it's not possible, but it's a massive hurdle for users.

russell 18y ago

I would pay $10/month, maybe even a lot more for a search engine that learned my interests. Fore example, if I say 'spring', I am not interested in soap, or perfume, or early season vacations. Or if it finds a match in a forum, it discounts posts that have no follow on. My list is quite long, but I could see paying $100/month if it saves me a few hours per month.