I find it a little odd that he spent so much time haggling over a $50 tool that is obviously providing a lot of value to him.
The response from the vendor (about it being hard to make money to pay his developers when selling a fairly niche tool) resonates with me, though. I built a fairly specific-use tool on the side last year and started selling it on the Mac App Store. I found that prices weren't very elastic, and I had to drop the price down to $2 to sell very many copies.
Even then, people think I'm some big company selling this software, when the revenue I generate from it isn't nearly enough to pay my bills, much less hire others to work on it. Even last year when I spent a while in the top 5 in dev tools, I wasn't netting more than $25 per day.
Ultimately, I think the app store concept is really cool and will be a net positive in the long run, but I wonder how many useful tools will fall through the cracks because buyers have been conditioned to think that a $5 app is "expensive", even though it isn't nearly enough to support some tools.
I find it more than a little odd. I've just bought the app (two computers), because it's something I've been looking for for a long time. I'd pay just for the shared clipboard feature. I can't count the number of times I had to copy a URL into a file on Dropbox, or Notational Velocity, just to be able to paste it into an E-mail being written on my laptop right next to my main machine.
Spending $50 saves me a lot of time and frustration. Also, it is much cheaper than writing the software myself (which I was seriously considering). I'm more than happy to pay that.
I also hope that because the software is well priced, the company won't feel a need to diverge into multiple half-baked products. I've seen that happen to Ironic Software (Yep, and afterwards Leap, Deep, Fresh), I'm seeing it happen to IcyBlaze (iDocument, and then Sparkbox). I'd much rather see a company develop ONE well-supported and polished app than diverge into multiple bug-ridden ones.
So, having used the software for a couple of hours, I've found at least three problems/bugs. Now we're going to see whether the price is justified and whether we indeed pay for support :-)
I can't count the number of times I had to copy a URL into a file on Dropbox, or Notational Velocity, just to be able to paste it into an E-mail being written on my laptop right next to my main machine.
Why?
ssh othermachine 'pbpaste' | pbcopy
Bind that to a launcher and/or key shortcut. Instant shared clipboard!
It's cool, but it's another thing one has to do beyond cmd-C. Why not just have a proper shared clipboard plus keyboard/mouse sharing in a multi-computer, multi-monitor setup?
Automatic keyboard sharing is just a small step away from that, but that seems really annoying to me. I'd rather control when I want to share.
Why not just have a proper shared clipboard plus keyboard/mouse sharing in a multi-computer, multi-monitor setup?
Because if you don't need keyboard/mouse sharing that's just bloat running on your machine, because you become dependent on yet another utility that may be discontinued or receive a crappy update at any time, because it's less flexible (can I share only on demand?), less portable and it costs $50 that would be better spent on blackjack and hookers (or whatever you do for relaxing).
I mean OS portable. I use Windows and Linux, you don't support that.
Oh, we should always listen to such kind of advisers.
I don't mean as an investment, I mean as entertainment. The "blackjack and hookers" is a reference to Futurama: http://youtu.be/z5tZMDBXTRQ
By the way, I'm not saying my solution is better than your application as a whole, far from it. I'm talking about the case where you only need clipboard sharing, which I know is only one of the features of your application.
I am more inclined to think the customers may be right and this app is not worth $50 to them. There are competing free products, but also competing work flows like using Dropbox to move documents between your two laptops depending why you are using two. The guy has clearly thought about this a fair amount.
There is apparent oversupply of app developers who seem to think they will make money but the evidence is very few will build sustainable businesses while the rest just help Apple out by adding diversity.
people think I'm some big company selling this software
I'm convinced this is a significant insight. Most consumers are trained to assume that they're always buying from Megacorp and that cheating and complaining is perfectly valid behavior.
Back when I was landlording, I had a HUD tenant who was a total pain - until she found out that her rent minus my mortgage was about twenty bucks a month. She had just assumed that as a property owner, I was rolling in cash. After that, she was pretty nice.
Even last year when I spent a while in the top 5 in dev tools, I wasn't netting more than $25 per day.
I've had apps in the iPad "what's hot" music app list many times but they're still only bringing chicken scratch compared to what I could have made consulting instead. The handful of home runs you hear about obscure the fact that for 99% of us the best way to make money in the app store is to charge by the hour for writing them for someone else.
The response from the vendor (about it being hard to make money to pay his developers when selling a fairly niche tool) resonates with me, though. I built a fairly specific-use tool on the side last year and started selling it on the Mac App Store. I found that prices weren't very elastic, and I had to drop the price down to $2 to sell very many copies.
Even then, people think I'm some big company selling this software, when the revenue I generate from it isn't nearly enough to pay my bills, much less hire others to work on it. Even last year when I spent a while in the top 5 in dev tools, I wasn't netting more than $25 per day.
Ultimately, I think the app store concept is really cool and will be a net positive in the long run, but I wonder how many useful tools will fall through the cracks because buyers have been conditioned to think that a $5 app is "expensive", even though it isn't nearly enough to support some tools.