undefined | Better HN

0 pointsearl14y ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

icebraining14y ago

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.

dkersten14y ago

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

bartelsmedia14y ago

> $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.

willyt14y ago

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

SatvikBeri14y ago

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?"

kstrauser14y ago

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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse