[underwater]

He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument.

On the developer side pricing this kind of consumer software per-device seems like poor marketing. It's unnecessarily reminding every potential customer about incremental cost. It also anchors the price incorrectly: "this software is worth $24.95, but you'll need to pay $49.90 to use it."

An unlimited $49.95 license makes more sense to me. Or a two-device license with upgrades to capture existing users who are willing to make additional upgrades based on sunk costs.

[scotty79]

> He says he wants and needs the app, it's worth the money but he still didn't pay? That's not a very convincing argument.

Even if you want, need and can, doesn't mean you should.

Personal purchases are almost never about economy but always about psychology. You buy to feel good afterwards. If high price spoils the pleasure for you then you are better off not buying even if you need, want and can afford.

Similarly low price or other circumstances like service or affiliation of the seller can spoil pleasure for some.

[infiniteburp]

However ... if we adjust prices lower, people buy more. If we set prices higher, people buy less. Sellers price their product to maximize their profits.

[scotty79]

I'm just saying that it's entirely possible to fulfill all economics perquisites for the purchase and still not make the purchase because we just plain don't like the price and won't feel good after paying it.

[wallflower]

I work at a software company. One of my friends there adamantly refuses to pay for software (he is still waiting for a proper unlock for the iPhone 4S). Talking with him about paying for software (yes, reminding him that his salary comes from people paying for software) reminds me of talking with my Republican-to-the-core friend about Global Warming. He just refuses to budge on his "values".

I remember once doing a charity event (training for a triathlon). I thought I had a good relationship with my parent's neighbor. I thought we had interesting conversations about life. He wrote me a tax-deductible check for $10 for my cause. That was the lowest donation out of the many I ended up raising.

Money is weird. It's free speech, in a way. You can express what you want by either paying it or with-holding it.

[pagekalisedown]

I don't understand your argument about the $10 check. Sounds like you're looking a gift horse in the mouth.

[batista]

No, sounds like his neighbor was el-cheapo.

That said, would you gladly accept a SICK gift horse?

That you would then have to take care off as it dies and or spreads its decease to humans? If not, then better LOOK at the gift horse's mouth (which is an old heuristic to judge it's general health).

[wallflower]

Going completely OT here - but let me explain the complete context of why $10 was not a generous donation:

The event was done through Team-in-Training. Team-in-Training is an organization that raises funds for cancer research. To raise funds, they help individuals train for an endurance event like a marathon/triathlon. Over 80% have never done an endurance event before. The training is fairly intense and lasts three to four months.

The hard part about Team-in-Training is not the training, however. It is the fundraising. You actually sign a document - if you do not officially withdraw by a certain time, usually several weeks after training starts - that your credit card will be charged for the balance of your minimum fundraising obligation (whatever you do not raise).

For my event, there was a minimum fundraising obligation of almost $4,000. This was an order of magnitude and then some more than I've ever raised for any charity prior.

My argument about the $10 check was that I thought I had a good relationship with my parent's neighbor and that he would recognize the importance of what I was trying to do (personal growth and all that) and help support me (it is all 100% tax deductible) with a $25 or $50 donation.

As it turns out, going back to the idea of giving money as "free speech", the people who gave the most usually had a direct connection to leukemia or lymphoma in their family. And they wanted to support me in memory of their loved ones. It wasn't about me, it was more about them (and usually I didn't know that there was a connection until afterwards). As for my parent's neighbor with the $10 check, he didn't care for the cause (even though he is in that field) or, more importantly, for me and what I was trying to overcome/conquer/do/accomplish. It hurt but I eventually got over it. I know that getting asked for money is hard - but asking people for money is harder (you're putting yourself out there).

The triathlon was a life-changing experience. I ended up raising almost $6,000. I highly recommend TNT to anyone I encounter who ever says "I wish I could run a marathon" or "I can't swim so I can't do a triathlon" or "I'm in a rut" (marathons are their most popular event, by far).

http://teamintraining.org/

[jacquesm]

The decision to sign up for an obligation of $4000 was yours, not your neighbors. He gave you $10, which is $10 more than he was obliged to give you.

Just like in any MLM scheme your ability to 'work' the people close to you is what allowed you to sign up for the program in the first place. It is almost as though you felt that your neighbor was obliged to give you a certain amount based on your perception of your relationship, his station in life and his ability to give in combination with helping you, but in fact you misdirected him by asking him to give (indirectly) to a charity.

Chances are that if you had asked him for a contribution to you instead of to a charity that you would have ended up with more than the $10, and how you would have spent that money would have been up to you.

I don't think you can draw the conclusion that he didn't care for you, you simply don't get to call how other people spend their money, and you aren't entitled to a say in that.

The best thing you can say to someone when they give you free money is 'thank you'. To go on a public forum and berate them for giving too little is really not the nicest response.

Suggestion: talk it over with your parent's neighbor and see what his side of the story is, rather than complaining about him to strangers. It is possible that you will come away with another 'life changing experience', one that teaches you about yourself and your relationships with other people.

[dkersten]

Agreed. A common thing here is sponsored parachute jumps for charity. I flat out refuse to give any money to them regardless of how much I can afford it or how well I know the person. I'd much rather donate directluy to the charity where ill know that they get it all instead of a large portion subsidizing someone's parachute jump. I feel is dishonest saying you're doing it for charity yet pay for it out of the sponsorship money. On the other hand if someone I know were to ask me for money to do a parachute jump, Id happily give it to them if I have it. I just feel like Im being tricked otherwise.

[Vivtek]

Jacques, it sounds like wallflower already knows all that. The issue is the emotional impact it had (which is in the past), not that wallflower still resents the neighbor.

And that money is weird, on an emotional level. Which it is.

(Not that anything you said here is wrong.)

[jacquesm]

He wrote:

> "let me explain the complete context of why $10 was not a generous donation:"

and

> "I thought I had a good relationship with him".

Which I took to mean he still sees it very much that way today.

The whole idea that somehow your friendship status should translate into an obligation to write a check for a minimum of 'x' for a charity that you pick is very strange to me.

As if you can put a price on friendship that way, and as if the 'interesting conversations about life' suddenly were not good or worthless by the act of giving an amount that was deemed too low.

[ericb]

> As for my parent's neighbor with the $10 check, he didn't care for the cause (even though he is in that field) or, more importantly, for me and what I was trying to overcome/conquer/do/accomplish. It hurt but I eventually got over it.

Or he just donated to something else. Or he had no idea what "normal" is. Or he had his mortgage payment coming up, or the medical treatments for his wife's condition. Or he thinks that giving shouldn't be artificially tied to high quotas and sporting events.

Or, it could be that he's picked up on your judgmental and self centered attitude and didn't feel good about giving the money to you. To ask people for money for a specific cause, and use that to judge them about their feelings toward you, and their overall generosity is obnoxious on several levels.

[wccrawford]

I still don't get why you keep saying, "I thought I had a good relationship with him". Because he won't support your charity, he's suddenly not your friend? You think you can just milk him for money any time you feel like it?

Did you ever stop to think that he only cut you the check because you were guilt-tripping him and he was thinking, "I thought I had a good relationship with this guy, but here he is shaking me down for money"?

Stop and take a look at things from the other side before you accuse the person of being a bad friend. It's rarely so simple that it only has 1 side.

[megablast]

This sounds like quite an odd way to raise money, and I too would be much more hesitant to giving money to this situation rather than straight out to a charity. I do not see what helping someone get fit has to do with curing cancer. I think you need to take that into consideration when judging someones donation.

[wallflower]

Point taken

[sc00ter]

"For my event, there was a minimum fundraising obligation of almost $4,000."

Which is to say that the majority of the first $4,000, so 2/3 of your $6,000 went towards paying for your training, not for the charitable cause.

This is why I won't contribute to sponsored parachute jumps, walks in the Andes, cycles across the country or other similar pursuits. If you want a vacation pay for it yourself, then we can talk. $10 was $10 too much.

[ScottBurson]

Having been on the other side of a similar situation I can only echo jacquesm's comments. You made the choice to take on this fundraising obligation. You didn't ask this man first to see if he would commit to putting in some amount of money. You can't unilaterally obligate him to do so.

In my own situation, which did involve TNT, I found myself rather skeptical, if not cynical, about the Big Cancer Research Establishment. I think it exists primarily as a self-preserving bureaucracy and does precious little actual research. (I could be wrong; I haven't really looked into it.) Under the circumstances, I nonetheless gave an amount which I thought was generous (and which was larger than $10). It was still received as inadequate. This did not dispose me to be generous with similar requests in the future.

[dkersten]

I remember reading that the American Cancer Society is the richest non-profit organisation in the country and that the top X people are paid a LOT of money.

I don't care enough to look up citations to back that up though, if anyone is interested I'd suggest going on Google and looking into it for yourself.

[dmoy]

I don't think page was saying that $10 is a generous donation, just that it's >$0. There are a lot of people who don't give a lot to charity, or are uncomfortable putting $$ amounts on relationships/friendships/etc.

[simonw]

Maybe he had just that morning cut a larger check for some other cause he WAS interested in, and hence when you came asking he would have preferred not to give at all but he gave $10 because he respected you.

[droithomme]

Horrible. If I knew donating $10 would get me badmouthed, resented and despised, I'd donate $0 like 99.999% of the people in the world donated to this event.

Also, based on what you say there about how it works, that "charity" is obviously a scam.

[kstrauser]

> He wrote me a tax-deductible check for $10 for my cause. That was the lowest donation out of the many I ended up raising.

Did you happen to peek at his checking account on your way out the door? Maybe he just paid his property taxes earlier that afternoon, or his grandkid's tuition. Perhaps he wholeheartedly approved of your fundraiser but didn't feel like liquidating assets that morning to help you finance it.

[Shivetya]

So you have a friend who is adamant about not paying for software yet has iPhone? It would seem his priorities are bit odd.

[andrewfelix]

Agreed. The author's argument is nullified by this statement: "I still won't pay $50 for a nice-to-have utility"

[earl]

The author has what looks like two mac laptops plus an external monitor. At least one of the macbooks is a macbook pro from the image in the article, so conservatively $3.5K in hardware? And $50 -- less than 1.5% of hardware price -- is too much money! I understand people have been conditioned to think software should be free, but getting hung up over $50 to fix what sounds like a significant hassle seems dumb. The alternative is what -- getting a hardware kvm or physically switching keyboard + monitor connections?

Also fta:

   Since arguing with Bartels, I have discovered Teleport, a newer, free, 
   Mac-only keyboard-and-mouse sharing app. Its existence made me think, 
   briefly, that I had won the argument. But Teleport has issues (the mouse
   gets stuck on target machines) and I've found it, for me, unworkable.

The mind boggles -- does this man not value his free time at all? He continued searching for software to avoid paying the $50. I'm curious how much time this guy would spend to avoid paying $50 and moving on with his life. There's obviously a limit, or he'd be enrolling in a CS undergrad to write his own to avoid spending that precious precious fifty bucks.

That said, I kind of agree with underwater the vendor misprices the app: $24.90 per computer, when the software is literally useless without two computers, should be $50 per pair + $24.90 for 3rd, 4th, etc.

[icebraining]

At least one of the macbooks is a macbook pro from the image in the article, so conservatively $3.5K in hardware? And $50 -- less than 1.5% of hardware price -- is too much money!

I'd say a specialized application like that provides well below 1.5% of the value that two Macbooks provide. But even if it wasn't:

    when CBS replaced my PC with a MacBook, giving me two-Mac setup

He didn't pay for the Macbooks, his employer did. So their price is irrelevant to this discussion.

[dkersten]

Then maybe he should ask his employer to pay the $50 too.

[bartelsmedia]

> $24.90 per computer, when the software is literally useless without two computers, should be $50 per pair + $24.90 for 3rd, 4th, etc.

Uhm, but the price is just that as you said: 2 x $24.90 = $49.80 which makes around $50 per pair.

The decision to sell individual licenses is made because it makes it easier to offer add-on licenses which you can conviniently add later at any time. I agree though, that we may need to improve how to communicate it.

[willyt]

I think he was making the point that you are fighting against psychology with your approach to pricing.

[SatvikBeri]

I've often found that journalists place a very low value on their time, possibly since they're paid so little. I had one conversation where I convinced a journalist that this software would save him 7 at least hours and cost $100...to which he responded, "If it's just 7 hours, why would I spend $100?"

[kstrauser]

The mind boggles -- does this man not value his free time at all? He continued searching for software to avoid paying the $50.

I understand your reasoning, to a point. But remember that he was previously paying $0 for an open source app that provided mostly the same functionality, and it's a big jump going from nothing to $50. In that situation, I'd probably spend quite a bit of time researching my alternatives so that 1) I didn't have to pay $50 more than I'm used to paying, 2) I don't have to pony up an extra $25 if I add another computer to the mix, 3) I can tell my friends and coworkers about the free alternative so it gains momentum and supplants the pricy version.

The "price/utility" equation is very much at play here. A $50 replacement for a free app better provide an enormous utility to make it worthwhile. There's a certain cross-platform text editor that gets mentioned lots here on HN that I bought because it was very useful to me. "Small" apps like a mouse sharing widget just aren't useful enough to me that I'd be willing to support that price point.

[leeoniya]

yeah this is an interesting point. on one hand it's a dead-simple model to explain and makes sense if you're using 6 computers. on the other hand the majority of users will not go above 3. i would probably say $50 for every 3 devices, only sold in 3-packs. this tiered version would seem a bit more fair and not have much impact on sales/support IMO.