[rdez6173]

When the app is forced to coexist with cheap/freemium applications in the App Store, it can be easy for consumers to make an apples-to-oranges comparison. That is, Angry Birds offers a lot of value at $0.99; does this app offer 100x the value? Is the value comparable? The user comments presented in the article seem to indicate unreasonable expectations set by the App Store market as to the value of software.

Perhaps they need to focus more on operating within the constraints of the market rather than fighting against them. There are several business models that work, and it doesn't need to be advertising based. They could offer tiers of functionality that that are priced accordingly. They could make it a subscription service. They could make make the functionality modular and offer a la carte in-app upgrades. In addition to all of these, they could offer a lifetime "platinum" version at $99.

[uxp]

> Perhaps they need to focus more on operating within the constraints of the market rather than fighting against them.

It's also amusing to look at the number of Chrome Extensions that do the same exact thing as this app that exist on the Extension Webstore. Granted, making a native iOS app can be arguably more expensive than a Chrome plugin, but it also shows where the market is pointing for this particular niche. Not many people I know of would willingly purchase this app to solve a mobile http connection issue they normally would solve with a free plugin for their desktop browser, especially when it's going to be a rarely used utility.

I think a tiered approach would be a fantastic way to ease consumers into the product. Not only would these developers get a much larger install base, but it would also help the entire app store economy grow more accustomed to more expensive apps, countering the "race to the bottom" effect the author cites as a reason they charge the amount they do.

[JohnTHaller]

There's also the fact that iOS locks out 3rd party browsers... only permitting 3rd party 'skins' with UI over the hobbled mobile safari with JIT disabled. So, you can't even write a full extension that'll work properly on an iOS browser like it would on an Android browser.

[drb311]

The most interesting thing is that even though people complain about the high price, the wallet test shows that real customers recognize the value and are content to pay $99.

The App Store has conditioned people to ASK for a low price, but that doesn't mean developers have to offer one. Any advice that says you should give people the price they ask for is bad -- the optimum price for any product is almost certainly higher than most people would pay. Even 99c apps shift far fewer units than freemium ones.

However I suspect HttpWatch would make even more money with a true freemium model where you pay for the volume of use.

[gtirloni]

I don't see why they should bend themselves backwards to fit a consumer-focused store. The fact that users expect apps to cost less than $5 despite whatever functionality is offered is outrageous to any company trying to provide a decent tool.

IMHO, Apple/Microsoft/Google should provide a "Enterprise" marketplace to things like this (if that doesn't already exists). Then people won't be comparing great tools against Angry Birds.