[flagged]
If you like and want that, you pay. If you don't you ignore.
Personally, I like it very much. I always enjoy seeing something well thought that would not necessarily fit everyones needs. Did I bought it? Not now because I don't see myself writing lots of text but if I had been writing I would definitely consider id because I want it despite not needing it ATM.
And before "software is cheap and wood is not", yes, but paint is also cheap and you don't judge an art piece by the price of the materials used.
I have not personally bought it, but I've wasted 60 on way more useless things.
What should something like Photoshop with 10000x the features and development costs then charge? $1000/month?
I understand "keeping it simple" but not "keeping it simple AND charging a crazy price for it" (there are essential, complex apps, that charge much less than that).
I guess, if you can get away with it...
Just because you aren't the target audience for such a product doesn't mean that audience doesn't exist. The world is large.
Personally I see a great business in premium tools for the elites in any domain. A professional writer probably wouldn't mind shelling out an extra $1000 a year or more for a premium tool that's better than anything else out there. Smaller audience, but it likely exists.
This goes both ways: if people aren't willing to pay even the price it takes to make the product, you go out of business. This happens often as well.
If photoshop saw an opportunity to increase the price to generate greater revenue, of course they'll try to do so. These changes in pricing and priorities often lead to opportunities for new products & companies.
Price should scale with demand. A company like Adobe might want to maximise revenue, so they price it optimally to make the most money out of their product.
A single developer might not want to support half a billion users at $5. If selling at $60 means a lower number of users and a manageable number of support requests per month, it is a much better idea, even if it means less revenue. And in general, at higher prices you get better quality customers.
Pricing is hard, because it is not intuitive. And more importantly, the value of something is often subjective. People tend to forget that.
The author shouldn't. Buyers should care what they're charged.
>Pricing is hard, because it is not intuitive. And more importantly, the value of something is often subjective. People tend to forget that.
And subjectivity often leads to stupid personal buying decisions. People tend to forget that.
> stupid personal buying decisions
Why does it affect you so much what other people are doing with their money? Spoiler alert: it is none of your business, and you are taking it way too personal.
I'm obviously not saying they are blindly charged an amount that they don't know.
I'm saying that they are buying stuff influenced by the minimalist fashion/emotion/etc and they don't know they're overpaying for no good reason.
>Why does it affect you so much what other people are doing with their money?
Because I live in a society, not in the wilderness. What people do with their money affects everybody, and people making better decisions is good for society in general.
>Spoiler alert: it is none of your business, and you are taking it way too personal.
While answering to me is "your business"? And getting into direct personal comments (as opposed to making a general remark)?
I resent the modern attitude that paying for software is an undue burden.
I know. I've used it for decades.
But $2100 for Photoshop - a professional working tool - even today, is way more justified than $100 for a "minimalist text editor" (or $120/year subscription for same). Not to mention you can get Photoshop+Lightroom+1TB storage for the same exact yearly subscription price.
If it wasn't a piece of software but something like a barebones plastic spatula sold for $100, people would just laugh it off. But because it's software and intangible we can mystify the end product and pretend like there aren't some much more realistic prices one would expect it to be sold at, and it's "all about demand". In other words, we bring in some of the mystification from the fashion industry, where the same t-shirt (materials, labour, design, etc wise) costs $10 in some outlet and $200 in another because it has a different brand name attached to it.
Just because other people are willing to spend this kind of money on a text editor doesn't mean we can't think they are ridiculous for doing so. I definitely judge people who spend $10 on a text editor.
I'm not passing some law preventing people buying a barebones text editor $100 (or $10/month). Just criticizing the wisdom of that decision.
It's one of the most crowded markets when it comes to offerings.
If people find their app, like what they see, and are willing to pay the price, what is your objection exactly?
My more general objection to your question is that I don't consider individual preference, or individual choice, or individual action beyond criticism, just because the individual is "fine with it".
People can "find a product, like what they see, and be willing to pay the price", and the purchase could still be stupid and deserved to be called as such, and the price could still be highway robbery and be deserved to be called as such, and the product could still be subpar/average/bad and be deserved to be called as such.
I would have words for such viewpoints, but for the sake of a civilized conversation, I won't express them here.
Yes.
Do you think it's impossible for someone else to know better than the buyer if the latter got a good deal for a product at a given price?
If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
>I would have words for such viewpoints, but for the sake of a civilized conversation, I won't express them here.
Good for you. I have similar words for your viewpoint.
I do. Do you see me passing any laws or enforcing something to prevent it?
Am I allowed to criticize their decision though, or is that to much to ask?
>Nothing of what you wrote is a reason against the existence of more choices.
That's because writing against "the existence of more choices" wasn't my point. It was about criticizing stupid choices.