Seriously, what percentage of people who just spent at least $3,500 on the hardware would quibble over an extra $5 when it comes to as essential a native app as Youtube?
I didn't buy the hardware, but if I had, I would quibble over the extra $5.
No, seriously. I would.
Here's the basic problem:
* I wouldn't mind spending $10 on something which I know I'm using.
* Most apps sit on my phone unused. Most are horrible. I have no idea before I buy whether it's good or horrible for me.
* I often don't mind spending a buck or two on something to see if I'll use it. $10 is right above that threshold.
* No apps do a decent free trial. I'm busy, so one of the 30-day things doesn't work for me. I'll install it, and when / if I get around to using it, the trial is already done. My life doesn't revolve around the app. Likewise, many apps will limit functionality to where the free trial is basically an advertisement, and I don't see if it's something I'd use.
I think what would work for me (n=1) is:
* The app is free for the first 40 hours of actual use. Or perhaps some annual quota.
* Continuing using it beyond that costs e.g. $20 for something simple like a video player and e.g. $100 for something complex like a video editor.
That aligns incentives right too.
For a video player, I don't think I'd use one without the option for an ad blocker. I'm not getting Youtube Premium no matter how cheap or expensive it is, since I don't think it'd be unethical for me to do so (it's a bit of a broken social contract by Google). That's another story (and I'm not trying to push my values on anyone else).
The question wasn't over $5. The question was over an extra $5, for a total of $10. $5 is basically the upper bound of where I'm willing to experiment.
The question is also very much about whether I am "supporting an independent developer with a tiny donation." A lot of stuff on app stores is spammy, scammy, and I explicitly don't want to support. Our dollars determine where our resources (as a society) go. I don't mind supporting good things, even with donations. I am currently fighting a company over <$3 which they got by fraud, not because it's worth my time, but because it's my civic duty; if I don't, they'll scam another million people.
The audience are HN readers -- entrepreneurs trying to make apps. The point isn't about me as what I ought to be doing (or about convincing others to be like me). The point is to honestly give customer insight, again, with an n=1. If enough people do that, there's a sample bias, but you do get better insight than nothing.
I'm probably going to stop doing that since "customers doing what we don't like" increasingly leads to downvotes. Either I'm communicating badly, people reading are increasingly bad at reading comprehension, or some combination there-of. These posts used to be valued a few years back.
However, as much as it didn't come across, the take-home message was intended to be that if you're running an honest business, you want to (and can) charge me more if you:
1) Clearly signal you're not evil. E.g. my data is treated with respect, you won't scam me, etc.
2) Give me enough information to be able to determine it's a product I want.
That's basic transparency, and a lot of startups lose my business because they screw it up.
No, seriously. I would.
Here's the basic problem:
* I wouldn't mind spending $10 on something which I know I'm using.
* Most apps sit on my phone unused. Most are horrible. I have no idea before I buy whether it's good or horrible for me.
* I often don't mind spending a buck or two on something to see if I'll use it. $10 is right above that threshold.
* No apps do a decent free trial. I'm busy, so one of the 30-day things doesn't work for me. I'll install it, and when / if I get around to using it, the trial is already done. My life doesn't revolve around the app. Likewise, many apps will limit functionality to where the free trial is basically an advertisement, and I don't see if it's something I'd use.
I think what would work for me (n=1) is:
* The app is free for the first 40 hours of actual use. Or perhaps some annual quota.
* Continuing using it beyond that costs e.g. $20 for something simple like a video player and e.g. $100 for something complex like a video editor.
That aligns incentives right too.
For a video player, I don't think I'd use one without the option for an ad blocker. I'm not getting Youtube Premium no matter how cheap or expensive it is, since I don't think it'd be unethical for me to do so (it's a bit of a broken social contract by Google). That's another story (and I'm not trying to push my values on anyone else).