
Why is Tweetbot for Mac $20? - JeremyBanks
http://tapbots.com/blog/news/tweetbot-mac/
======
eykanal
There 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.

~~~
zupreme
This, 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.

~~~
comex
Except that there's no reason it has to be underground. For a long time,
instant messaging services tried to block third party clients, but I've never
heard of them trying to take legal action. The Twitter TOS claims that "you
have to use the Twitter API if you want to reproduce, modify, create
derivative works", but that's copyright language, and Twitter does not own the
copyright to tweets; only individual tweeters would have standing to sue for
copyright infringement (see the recent Craigslist controversy), and I'm not
sure such a claim would be valid anyway. There's the CFAA, but... anyway, I'm
not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if Twitter made a first by suing the makers
of an unofficial client. In the meantime, dunno if Apple would let it into the
App Store, but they could freely sell their client from their home page.

Well, that's my dream. tent.io is nice, but it's not going to replace Twitter
anytime soon, and I actively dislike app.net. But we're past the age when
third party clients can be effectively blocked by technical means, and I want
to see their return.

~~~
dpearson
Of course, Twitter _can_ prevent the use of any of their trademarks, making
branding difficult, to say the least. Sure, you could make an unofficial
Twitter client without any problems, but Twitter might be able to take legal
action if you state anywhere that it's a "Twitter client."

Plus, these cat-and-mouse games require a user base that is fairly quick to
update; if Twitter blocks one avenue (and they will try desperately to do so
if one of these clients gains a decent number of users), an update for the
client is likely necessary. I would think the easier way would be for users to
get their own API keys and secrets and enter them into the app.

~~~
comex
Well, that would be straight-up tortious interference. But I feel like now
that clients have moved on to higher-level protocols, and exist on so many
platforms, Twitter would have a hard time blocking use of API keys extracted
from the official apps. If I have time, I'll retrieve them myself...

~~~
dpearson
Technically, if those keys could be extracted (I'm no expert on that), that
would be the easier option, as Twitter cannot really afford to revoke those
without massive headaches on their end. You likely couldn't distribute those
keys, but I have no idea if automatic extraction at install time would be fair
game on a large scale.

~~~
comex
Actually, keys are not copyrightable, so the only obstacle I know of to
distributing them is the DMCA - which I think doesn't apply here, since the
key does not circumvent an access or copy control measure (it doesn't bypass
the requirement to log in or anything like that, and Twitter.app has no
technical measures to prevent you from copying tweets).

~~~
dpearson
My bad with the copyright, although it looks like Twitter leaves themselves
nice leeway to kill at least your personal account for it, as it is forbidden
to "access or search..the Services by any means other than through our
currently available, published interfaces that are provided by Twitter (and
only pursuant to those terms and conditions)"[1], which I would read to
exclude the (slightly-modified, I believe) access Twitter's own apps get.

[1]: <https://twitter.com/tos>, Section 8

------
danilocampos
Why 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
I 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
That'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
Twitter 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.

~~~
ChrisLTD
They 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.

~~~
lostlogin
Yes. Additionally, blocking access past 100k also stops one client from being
the-tail-that-wags-the-dog too. Imagine a dispute where Twitter faced blocking
the chosen mode of access to a significant percentage of users, or caving to
the client owner.

------
jlmendezbonini
Quickly 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
I 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.

~~~
jlmendezbonini
>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.

I wouldn't say is that simple. I think it depends on WHO is buying WHAT. For
example, if I'm buying a pillow...yes, I'll buy the cheapest one available. If
I were buying a watch, no. I'd be more than happy to pay over $10,000 for a
watch (insane ah? if I could just convince the wife...) Why? because a
different set of criteria come into play and the utilitarian aspect (telling
time) loses importance (heck a $5 Casio can be more accurate sometimes).
Things like the engineering behind the construction of the watch, the history
of the brand, the materials used, etc, become purchasing decisions factors.
The point is that for some it's worth $20 or more because it's either
beautiful, stable, etc, or they might just like Tapbot as a company.

>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.

And yet...I'm confident and I really hope they sell enough copies to make a
good profit out of a great product.

>You really can't fault them for price-gouging: Everyone loves money.

I truly disagree with this statement. It's not about greed. Come on, they even
took the time to explain to their users why they had charge more than they had
initially planned.

>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.

Look, you wrote it more clearly than me: it's about "perception of value".
Some users think it's fairly priced, others that it's too high, and some that
they could even charge more.

By the way, I won't buy it either...too expensive...for me ;)

~~~
ruswick
Fair enough. The notoriety or devotion to the brand and other "soft" benefits
also have weight on the utility of a product. The traits like material used
and engineering are encompassed within the utility. If an app runs better,
it's worth more. If it looks better, it's worth more. So yes, people will
value TB for Mac differently. But that doesn't defend the initial sentiment.
Those guys did not argue something akin to "I like the Tapbots Guys and the
aesthetic of the product has value, so I will pay more." In fact, they argued
close to the opposite. Regardless of the value people get (which is going to
vary by person), they assert that the product is worth that much to everyone
because of the effort that went in to it. They were actually indignant that
people did not see $20 worth of value in the app. I don't believe that
perception of value is absolute.

In regards to the defense of the price, I don't think the fact that they are
resource-constrained changes the endgame: they want to make money.
Conceivably, TapBots wants to accrue a large amount of money over the lifetime
of TweetBot. This artificial constraint changes their ability to earn money
because the number of sales is limited and life of the product is shortened.
So, they charge more to compensate for Twitter's absurd policies. That does
not change their motives, it just changes their strategy. They're not being
coerced by Twitter to sell it for $20. They could sell it for $10 or $15, and
could likely make a profit, but it would be substantially less than if they
were to sell it for more. It's all in pursuit of money. Like I said, this
isn't bad. I admire people who are capable of creating such rabid fans and
defenders, and who can get away selling an app at far above the market
average.

------
bluetidepro
Tweetbot 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
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?

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
> _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
> 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
> _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
> 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.

~~~
ruswick
Value is determined not by the amount of work put into it, but by the
precedent set by the market. So long as there are free and sub-$3 clients, $20
is anomalous.

What gets me most about arguments like these is that you are pulling numbers
out of thin air. You assert that $.99 is too little for an app, but provide no
context nor any evidence to support that. Give me a number that demonstrates
the monetary value to the consumer of an hour of development. You can't.

Insofar as there is no absolute value of development time— and, therefore, of
apps— the only way to gauge value is based on market precedent. If everyone
else is charging $2 for their apps, yeah, $20 is too much.

~~~
msbarnett
> Value is determined not by the amount of work put into it, but by the
> precedent set by the market.

directly contradicts:

> If everyone else is charging $2 for their apps, yeah, $20 is too much.

Let this sink in: Tweetbot for has been out for less than 24 hours. It is
_already_ #2 in sales _and_ #2 in Mac App Store revenue.

The market _completely disagrees with your latter statement_.

What you're seeing here isn't that $20 is too much given that everyone else is
selling at $2.

Rather, what you're seeing is that _everyone else_ , operating under the
received "wisdom" that apps are worth less than a cup of coffee, are leaving
absolutely staggering amounts of money on the table by being afraid to ignore
the nonsense and ask for real value in return for their work.

~~~
cynix
> Let this sink in: Tweetbot for has been out for less than 24 hours. It is
> already #2 in sales and #2 in Mac App Store revenue.

To be fair, Tweetbot only has to sell 1/10 as many copies as those $2 apps in
order to beat them at the sales ranking.

------
jusben1369
Funnily 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
This 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
They could just raise the price to $1000 once they get close to the token
limit.

~~~
mikeash
Or just make it free, since it's no longer useful for new users.

------
LeeUmm
I 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?

~~~
msbarnett
> 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.

------
PanMan
So, 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
They have a limit over 100k (2x their current user base) IIRC, since they
already have 100k+ users on Tweetbot.

~~~
masklinn
Tokens 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.

~~~
andrewmunsell
In 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.

------
kmfrk
Am I the only one smiling at seeing the equivalent of limited-edition software
in the year 2012?

Twitter is weird.

~~~
negativity
I'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.

------
unreal37
I 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
>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.

------
deveac
They 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
Twitter 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
I _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
Can you imagine if _everyone_ felt the exact same way you do? I suggest you
buy it if you _really_ want to.

------
abbott
Twitter 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.

------
janaboruta
I would happily pay $20 for Tweetbot. It's a great app: well designed, easy to
use, intuitive.

------
rockarage
The irony of this is ever since I got tweetbot for my ipad, I stoped using
twitter on my Mac.

------
paulsilver
I'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.

------
bitcartel
Once upon a time you didn't have to justify your pricing. Thanks App Store.

~~~
bsg75
Why 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
Because 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.

------
utopkara
The 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
Developers aren't their target audience.

~~~
utopkara
You'll find plenty of them when you come to HN to talk about your product.

~~~
tomflack
What does that prove? I doubt you'd get any meaningful number of people on HN
willing to roll their own tokens to make it worthwhile lowering the price.

