[smoldesu]

Maybe they shouldn't charge $15/month for a product that's incomplete. The only reason I'm not the target audience here is because I won't use a subscription-based browser, much less one that has fewer features than my current browser. I respect people who build software, but you have to get pricing right if you want people to care.

> I wonder what it is about hacker news that brings out this incessant negativity in people.

It's an incubator site. We're here to offer our advice on upcoming products, and many people post their products explicitly to hear what they might be doing wrong. It's a trial-by-fire, but rapid iteration will almost always yield a better product.

[_zzaw]

Agreed. The subscription pricing model alone is an instant disqualifier.

$15 for a one-time purchase? I'd absolutely consider it. $15/month? Never.

[etothepii]

The comparison of one time vs subscription wouldn't be $15 vs $15 but more like $500 vs $15.

[gruez]

In what world is a browser worth $500? For comparison, a complete operating system (eg. windows) has cost around $200, and this was applicable even in windows 98 days, before microsoft was trying to monetize it using ads/telemetry.

[etothepii]

When buying software the cost is heavily impacted by the number of users that benefit. Windows is used by >100m users, a new browser is probably doing well if it's used by >100. Of course the price is different.

[xrisk]

Probably more like $5000. Have you considered how insanely complicated browsers are? It’s a miracle they’re free.

[gruez]

Well the reality is that there are two browser engines that are free and open source. If they built their own that was better than the incumbents (eg. from performance/privacy point of view), then I might consider it. But I'm not paying $5000 for a chrome reskin, just like I won't pay $5000 for a debian reskin.

[xrisk]

I’m saying it’s a miracle that Chrome/FF is free.

[djrogers]

3 - Chromium/Blink, Webkit, and Firefox.

[bdcravens]

Not a miracle. Just Google.

[_zzaw]

Yeah, and that's why app subscriptions make no sense to me at all. I don't have a problem paying for resources I use—storage space, web-based functionality—but being charged every month just so they don't shut off my software is lunacy, and I will never support that.

I'm fine supporting good software. If this app served my needs well, I'd happily pay $50–60 for it. Once.

[codetrotter]

> Maybe they shouldn't charge $15/month for a product that's incomplete

How do you expect them to ever finish the browser if they don't have any income from working on it?

[asimpletune]

That’s what investors are for, ostensibly, no?

Another way to phrase this is how can you expect people to buy something at a price below it’s value?

Actually, haha, I just realized there’s an answer. Because they’ll expense it at work.

[throwaway1777]

Let me tell you about a thing called Ycombinator. They help you raise this thing called venture capital for exactly this purpose…

[somebodythere]

Investors like to see revenue, when they are looking to make an investment.

[codetrotter]

That’s what I’m thinking too. But my experience with investors is very limited so far. The investor in the startup that me and a couple of others founded agreed to contribute funds (in exchange for ownership of a percentage of the company), but in our case the condition was that these funds are for things like marketing and other expenses, and not for paying salaries to ourselves. So until our company is making a profit we are not getting paid a salary at all. But I don’t know if this is actually common or not, and how for example Silicon Valley is with regards to this compared to our geographical location.

[bdcravens]

No matter what the industry or the product is, that's not the consumer's problem.

[danenania]

The problem is that the crew who reflexively post negative comments on Show/Launch HNs are mostly a loud (and smug) but unrepresentative minority with idiosyncratic tastes. Sure, you can learn something from any feedback, but most products would be made worse if the creators took these comments too much to heart, especially when it comes to pricing.

That said, you can obviously get a lot of great feedback on HN too! But no one grumbling about $15/mo being too much to pay for X or subscriptions in general being bad is likely to be very helpful.

[BlissWaves]

Best cure for that is "treat others as you would want yourself to be treated". In this case I would really appreciate it if someone told me that my idea wasn't novel at all, sucked or that I was charging exorbitant fees for some minor improvement of my productivity.

A lot of times in life, kindness doesn't look like kindness.

[danenania]

"In this case I would really appreciate it if someone told me that my idea wasn't novel at all, sucked or that I was charging exorbitant fees for some minor improvement of my productivity."

Ok, but if the reason you think something "sucks" is because of an uncommon opinion that you hold, like a good UI isn't important or worth paying extra for, then your comment isn't very helpful to the creator. It says much more about you than the product.

Similarly, most people in tech/knowledge work would not consider $15 per month for software that makes them more productive to be "exorbitant", and I think we all know that. If you feel that way, fine, but it's not relevant to the discussion.

[chipotle_coyote]

"Someone told me my idea sucked" is not in and of itself any more of a useful signal than "someone told me my idea is brilliant"; one person's opinion is, well, one person's opinion. Who that person is makes a difference. In the case of SigmaOS here, the "(YC S21)" suggests that they've had at least one very positive signal: YCombinator accepted them. "The most famous seed funding group in the tech world likes us enough to work with us" is probably more of a meaningful signal than "SnarkyTechGuy1337 left us a cutting comment on Hacker News".

[throwawayswede]

Almost every Show/Launch HN post that has a slightly abrasive comment (which is not the same thing as negative or nonconstructive) gets a few comments in the same vein from the "people are negative" to the "people are toxic" kinds, which honestly speaking appears way more smug to me.

[danenania]

It's not just about being abrasive. It's about posting negative comments when you have nothing to offer. If your reaction to something new is that you have absolutely no interest or wouldn't pay a few cappuccinos per month for it then guess what: no one cares. You're just polluting the thread with noise.

Helpful: this is interesting, but I tried it and it's missing these features that I would need to consider paying for it.

Not helpful: subscriptions are the devil!

[detaro]

The comment all this is under is not just "subscriptions are the devil!". Some responses seem more "reflexively negative" (against any criticism) than the comments they respond to.

you don't seem to offer much value over free competitors and why should we trust you might be hard points to address, but are important.

[danenania]

"you don't seem to offer much value over free competitors and why should we trust you might be hard points to address, but are important."

I agree with you on those points. But dismissing improved UI/UX as "makeup" is not helpful.

[throwawayswede]

> But dismissing improved UI/UX as "makeup" is not helpful.

It would be if the UI/UX is presented as a feature. I agree with you about the style but I disagree that this is dismissive, it's constructive but coarse.