From: James Wages (james_at_kiramek.com)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 17:38:27 PDT
On 4/7/05 6:28 AM, "Frank Gruendel" <newtontalk_at_pda-soft.de> wrote:
> I guess you guys should develop your
> own games and then we can tell you
> how much to charge for them.
It never fails that responses like this appear. But the fact is, you are
missing the point. Read on for clarifications...
On 4/7/05 6:28 AM, "Frank Gruendel" <newtontalk_at_pda-soft.de> wrote:
> There have been no active updates of some
> of my Newton software since about 2003.
> Does this mean my software is worth less?
Yes, as time goes on. (No offense intended.)
Why should the rules of depreciation apply to everything BUT Newton
software? The fact is, because the platform is no longer supported by
Apple, the number of Newton users has declined. In addition, the number of
Newton users who actively use their Newton as much as they used to has
declined. That in and of itself makes "depreciation of value" apply in this
particular case. Therefore, it only makes logical sense that software
prices should decline over time to some extent. Not to $1. I never
mentioned such a silly value as that. There is no slippery slope at work
here either. I am only talking about "reasonable pricing." I look to many
Palm apps where pricing is around $10 as the basis for suggesting the amount
of $10. To some, the price may be $2 or even $5, but the developer has to
use reason to set an amount that makes economic sense WITHOUT setting it too
high.
But even if you do not wish to accept that argument, I am of the position
that $30 would have been rather steep for this game even back in 1998 when
the board game cost much less than that.
And now consider this: I have paid much more than $30 for certain utilities
for my Newton. I happily paid that money in some cases, like for ATA
Support, partly because it was developed AFTER the demise of the Newton. I
wish to help support such ongoing development, especially when it benefits
me on my Newton. But please also consider that I also paid more than $30
for these "utilities" because I use them every single day, all day long.
The price is cheap to me when considering how much I use those packages.
It's about "perceived value based on potential usage." If someone perceives
that they will only click on that TV once a month, that person would likely
be at the very edge of sanity in paying $600 to $1,000 for it! So the TV
analogy does not apply in this case.
> But if he is a decent software seller,
> he will not sell software without support.
You mean, the same support he puts into updating that web page?
I know what you're saying. I'm not knocking the developer. I'm just trying
to shake you up a bit. But you must admit that the required amount of
"active support" on this game is rather small. And if I am wrong, the
developer need only reduce the price and tell everyone it is "unsupported."
There have been no changes since 1998, so why should there be any now? And
how much support is really required for a game of this type?
Leaving pricing the way it is has little merit for this particular
developer, for this particular game.
> ... he wouldn't be able to earn his living.
If the man is earning his living off this Newton app alone, he's in trouble!
If you are living off profits from your Newton software alone, then that's
great. But again, I am not talking about you or your software.
> I've never in my whole life heard anybody say
> "I won't spend THAT much money on a TV set
> that I'll only switch on once in a blue moon".
You missed the point by the same distance as the earth to the moon, my
friend.
For those who also missed it, here it is in layman's terms:
Some people may want to buy this game to play on airplane trips or other
long journeys. These people may not even consider the game at other times.
In such cases, $30 will appear to be rather high to would-be buyers. But
for those wanting to play it once a day, the price would be right.
It is my belief that the majority of would-be buyers will not play this game
"daily," thus illustrating how steep the price is. This is the basis for
all my arguments on the issue. It's marketing 101.
No, it is not realistic that the developer set pricing on a per-buyer basis,
individually guessing who may use it more or who may use it less. One must
use wisdom and sound judgment to analyze the market for one's product. If
one perceives the demand to be there and the demand to be for a product that
is used all the time, it would make sense to set the price higher. But this
particular game suffers from (1) low demand and (2) the strong likelihood
that buyers will not use it all the time. Reason dictates that the price
should drop "within reason."
> For software writers like myself...
Thank you for being honest. Herein lies the reason for the position you
have taken. But again, I am not talking about your software or your prices.
Charge whatever you like. I may even buy some of your software at the
prices you have set.
I am talking about one app from another developer (who is no longer
developing for the Newton, mind you).
I do not wish to broaden this discussion onto Newton software in general.
Let's stick to the Newtopoly game.
> I know I should keep my big mouth shut.
No, you have the right to scream your position from the highest hill.
Indeed, I am happy you did. Your response helped me to clarify my position
on the matter.
I can only hope the developer of this fine app is listening and makes his
own decision on Newtopoly pricing in light of all the points presented.
Best,
James Wages
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 02:30:01 PDT