Ask HN: Why are people so reluctant to pay for software?

[flomk]

All of my evidence is anecdotal, but from talking to friends that are not power users/tech people, to me it seems that the average person thinks of paying for software as an outlandish idea.

Meanwhile they are more than willing to spend $5 on coffee yet wouldn't consider spending $5 for software. What makes even less sense to me is that when it comes to subscription based services they seem more willing to spend their money than they are for a one time payment.

Would love to hear your thoughts as to why this is.

[mydongle]

Software is too volatile.

If the software is good to start with, it is loved, but then the developers will decide to change it. Users have very little say in this, especially when the company behind it is beholden to some other kind of power instead of their damned users. People either live with the changes or they move on. I always move on. I am merely one person, so my word doesn't mean anything. Most people live with the changes. Or the company will gain new users who don't know how good things used to be and the old users stop mattering.

Recently, there was a paid app that came out with a new version of their paid app, so they made an update that rendered the previous version useless and they offered users a coupon to buy the new one.

You can miss me with that. I'm not paying for a double cheeseburger that can become two pieces of bread with ketchup on it that's been stepped on at any given time.

[LarryMade2]

Here are a few thoughts, hope these make sense...

$5 software? Many of such priced programs don't really do all that much, they are kind of like a plug in or widget in older programs and OSs. Unless it is fairly unique I probably wouldn't jump, just because it is usually available without costs or other strings in the open source community.

For more comprehensive programs - I've bought software and will do again. I usually use the heck out of a program I purchased for at LEAST 5 to 10 years - or longer.

I don't rent software - if I bought it I expect it to work as purchased until I decide not to use it anymore. I can understand technically it may no longer work with newer computers/OSs, but I may want to keep using version 1 on some dinosaur PC when version 20 comes out.

The software can be transferred to new machines, I bought it I want to move it from old computer X to newer computer Y, I better have a way to do it.

Don't mess with with program features with free bug-fixes/upgrades. Too many times I had a perfectly good program running when the company does some sort of upgrade or bug fix that just dropped features. Usually its some shady marketing ploy along with "Oh, you can do that along with a bunch of other stuff by buying the pro version now!" (Apple, Adobe, Microsoft) Sometimes you don't know about it until you switch systems and the only download option is the new hobbled version.

I guess the main thing is give me installation media (or a download of a full off-line installer) and product key, and I'm set. The trend to buy stuff dependent on the long-term existence of the company or their activation servers is not comforting.

App store stuff is dependent on the app store still being able to service your device over time as well as you continuing to list the item or keep it available for reinstallation.

Real world example of non techies; most successful authors stick with the same typewriter, computer, or word processor throughout their career because the device has proven it's ability and now never gets in the way of the writer putting their thoughts to paper. Their world can come crashing down when their preferred device breaks, because they have to leave the "Making money by just doing my thing" mode to "OMG I am so lost with this new crap!" mode. People don't just keep buying new versions of the same stuff, especially productive people.

[lovelearning]

Software payments seem to fall under either a periodic subscription model or a one-time purchase model. Both involve inconvenient workflows - setting up an account with each provider, handing over payment details to each provider, tracking payments on provider's website.

My other problem is that software usage is not consistent - I may need something badly this week but never again.

I'd be paying more and for more things if there was a smooth pay-per-use micropayments solution. Load up a wallet at start of the month. Every provider has a standard pay tip button which should be as easy to integrate anywhere as a "share this on twitter" link. Click the button, enter amount, and that's that. Software, news, content websites would all benefit. I think mobile games have solved this in a way through in-app purchases.

[bobblywobbles]

Skimmed over the responses here to make sure what I want to say wasn't already covered.

I think there are a lot of reasons: - Many do hobby projects and aren't looking for money. Users use these hobby projects and expect all software to be free. - Software is non-tangible, so it's hard to make the value connection to it. It's not material, so why do I have to pay? - The costs are hidden. It's hard to say software is $x because it took 3 months for feature y. Those are internal implementation details that users don't see or don't understand. - It is hard to justify need. Tool z might also solve your problem, so might as well use that. It's not as straightforward as I'm hungry, I need food. Software can solve a problem in one way, but only if you see it in that way. (Generality)

[tlb]

Two main reasons for me:

Probably 80% of the software I've ever tried, I hated and never touched again. That's a bummer when you've just paid for it.

Paid software is usually a pain if you want to use it on more than one device, or when you upgrade a device.

[flomk]

Do you think you would be less hesitant if there was a refund policy similar to that of steam's where a time window is provided for you to try and return if you are not happy with your purchase?

[greenyoda]

Instead of a refund, I'd prefer a free trial period (possibly with limited functionality) so I could evaluate the quality of the software before laying down my money. Knowing I'll need to go through the hassle of getting a refund if it doesn't work out makes me less likely to try the software in the first place. Contacting customer support for a refund is an unpleasant process at too many companies.

Also, as to your original question of why people are reluctant to pay for software, it depends a lot on the software. Much of the software that people sell (e.g., a game for a phone) is less useful to me than a cup of coffee, so I wouldn't bother downloading it even if it was free. And even if your software is useful to me, it has to compete with lots of free alternatives that are very good.

There are also the security/privacy risks that comes with installing software from unknown providers. A widely used open source program would be easier to trust than an app from some random person on HN that I've never heard of.

That said, I do buy software that's useful to me. For example, I buy tax prep software every year, and I pay for e-mail (Fastmail) and a web-based RSS aggregator (Newsblur).

[buboard]

- no social signaling value

- knowing that there is an easily obtainable alternative (piracy) makes buying feel like being cheated/ripped off. people don't like feeling like fools, they like to think they re on top of things

- copies are free to make, so nobody is being deprived or damaged by them obtaining a copy

- programmers are generally invisible, so no emotional guilt unless the programmer themselves makes a personal plea/fundraiser

- probably no emotional value before buying. after buying, perhaps there is a certain emotional commitment to the software/game and so they are willing to spend more .

- Apple is the exception. It has social signaling value and also emotional affect, so users are primed to and willing to pay no matter what

[api]

What people will pay for X is not at all rational. The market has been taught that most software is free, and that coffees cost five bucks. That is what people expect, so that is what they pay.

Another reason is that it's tough to compete with free. FOSS edges out paid developer and systems tools everywhere but the high end or specialized niches, and surveillance capitalism provides a model whereby huge SaaS stacks for social media and communication can be not only offered but aggressively pushed for "free." These are not free, but the cost is quite hidden.

Lastly I think the added friction of paying, licensing, and license management is a factor. Anything that adds friction slows adoption a lot.

[flomk]

While I definitely agree that FOSS is good enough that makes it paying for software that does the same thing less appealing, the average person that I talked about in my post doesn’t use and usually isn’t even aware of FOSS.

[foxyv]

Most software in my experience is: * Poor quality

* Offers no refunds

* Uses planned obsolescence

* Requires terrible EULAs

* Installs intrusive DRM

* Has a bad reputation for spying on you

* Installs Adware, Malware, Bloatware

I learned a lot about buying software when I was a kid in the 90s. There was no way to know if the stuff you were buying would be any good. Then once you found out it was steaming horse poop you couldn't return it. Then when you went to uninstall, it would fail and leave junk on your computer. Also there would be "Extras" installed like AOL, NetZero, and AdWare.

[sneeuwpopsneeuw]

Free software: Over the last 3 years I slowly made the switch to linux and started using more and more open source and free software. Once you have used libre office and google docs it is hard to motivate your self to buy the MS office suit. This same argument can be used for free to play games. So the paid software world has responded by making more and more specific and specialized tools. The Adobe suit is for example a great example of this.

Not Physical: For me personally one of the reasons that I stopped playing for game was that they stopped shipping it on real physical discs.

[jimmyvalmer]

Ease of replication makes things like music, movies, and software worthless.

[dublinben]

The buying software vs a cup of coffee conversation is so old, it even has detractors.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6468783 (2013)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4393817 (2012)

[brudgers]

In the consumer space value propositions are soft. Money for status, convenience, comfort, security, etc. Paid software has marginal advantage at best because nobody sees it, proficiency takes time, risks are long tail, etc. The business market has a simple money for money value proposition.

[rolandtshen]

I think part of it may be how easy it is to find alternatives to paid services. Found a notes app that costs $5/mo? Google free note taking app and you'll be able to find one that's truly free, or one at least has a generous free tier.

[pnako]

They've been flooded with freeware/freemium (often malware or adware disguised as a gift) so they lost the ability to identify value.

More informed people still pay for software.

[spajus]

I buy coffee for $10/kg, it gets me 75 cups of strong black coffee. I will rather pay $5 for software.

[soulchild37]

Selling to consumers is hard mode, try selling to business or at least a professional, it is a lot easier

[rotterdamdev]

Plenty people pay for software. You should target niche professionals who are underserved, not the plebs.