>> I wholeheartedly disagree. By your logic, people wouldn't pay money for Windows, or Photoshop, or thousands of other software packages. Oh, and Steam! People

>> I wholeheartedly disagree. By your logic, people wouldn't pay money for Windows, or Photoshop, or thousands of other software packages. Oh, and Steam! People pay $20 or more on Steam for some mediocre stuff. The mistake in his logic is generalizing to all digital goods. People are hesitant to pay for mobile goods relative to others. Look at Angry Birds. In terms of hours of enjoyment (or distraction for your kids), it is worth much more than $.99 based on what you would pay for something as basic as a Slinkee. However, it took me almost a year of playing only the demo versions to finally buy the full game. This may be a positive in terms of people resisting purchase of frivolous goods, but the point about mobile goods being valued less than their physical or non-mobile counterparts stands. What's the most expensive app to ever hit the top charts for iPhone/iPad purchases? My guess is that it is substantially cheaper than the most expensive best-selling software. Final note: I wholeheartedly agree with you that the proportion of useless to useful apps is likely the most important factor in this valuation difference.