What's a fair price for Spanning Sync?

[cwood]

One of the questions we hear most often is, "How much will Spanning
Sync cost?" The answer today is, "We don't know yet." Our aim is to
provide a valuable service at a fair price, and we need your help to
determine what's fair.

We're starting with the idea that a yearly subscription to Spanning
Salesforce will cost much less than .Mac (which is US$99.95) but
somewhat more than "free".

Please post your thoughts about pricing to this discussion thread
keeping in mind two questions. First, what do you think a fair price
is? And second, what do you think other people will think a fair price
is?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Regards,
Charile

--

Charlie Wood
Principal, Spanning Partners, LLC

[Tyler Hall]

>From my point of view, the pricing depends on how the program is
implemented. (Forgive me if this is answered elsewhere.) Does Spanning
Sync communicate directly between your computer and Google Calendar? Or
does it use Spanning Sync's server as a middle-man to handle syncing as
.Mac does between computers?

My co-workers and I were discussing Spanning Sync yesterday and we all
assumed that it was option 1 - direct connection without relying on
your servers. If that's the case, we had ballparked the price between
$15 and $25 (US), which is about the average price for most Mac
software.

However, the "Privacy Policy" link on the bottom of the preference pane
makes me think Spanning Sync utilizes a go-between server on a
subscription basis. If so, I hope it's no more than $10/year. Why so
low a price? For me (and the people I work with) the idea of relying on
yet another 3rd party to handle our data is not very appealing. Even at
$10/year I'd be reluctant to sign-up.

This has the potential to be a hugely popular product. Nearly every Mac
user I know uses Google Calendar. I understand the need and appeal of
having a recurring revenue stream, but you're going to make a ton of
money either way. I just hope you pick the first option. I'd gladly
continue paying for version upgrades and improvements, as they are
released but paying a recurring fee to just keep the program working
leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Thanks for reading. Everyone here is looking forward to giving Spanning
Sync a try.

[David Chartier]

On 11/2/06, cwood <charli...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please post your thoughts about pricing to this discussion thread
keeping in mind two questions. First, what do you think a fair price
is? And second, what do you think other people will think a fair price
is?

 I think a one time purchase would be easier to digest in consumer's eyes. "Subscription" adds a whole new layer of "do I really need this" to the decision. That said, if you still go that route, I think $15-25/year would be fair in most people's eyes. .Mac's syncing value includes the ability for 3rd parties to hop on board (Transmit, Yojimbo, etc.), so I don't think you can charge quite as much as what the syncing portion of .Mac is valued at.

I also think you could snag $15 up to *maybe* $30 per user just for a straight-up software purchase. This again is a tough realm from another perspective in that you're charging for a service, instead of an application. I think that difference does things to people's psyches when judging value in software, something that is already awkward to deal with in the first place.

Last, I think you should look into using some of the buzz marketing efforts out there like macZOT.com. Developers seem to love the face time and the good number of new, happy users they snag with it.

--
David Chartier
--
My work:
The Unofficial Apple Weblog: http://www.tuaw.com/
Download Squad: http://downloadsquad.com

My play:
1FPS: http://www.dcharti.com/blog/
Vox: http://dcharti.vox.com

[Dave]

I couldn't agree more - this is an awesome "small app" solution that
you could certainly grow to be part of a suite of products, but I
wouldn't necessarily want my info going through a central server, and
this app is really a utility that has a price-point of around
$15-$25/license - I could even see it appearing on MacZot.

Look at the success of apps like AppZapper - this is an AppZapper kind
of application, with a huge potential if priced at a consumer level.

Can't wait to try it out!

On Nov 2, 9:47 am, "David Chartier" <dcha...@gmail.com> wrote:

[BZ]

I would agree this would be a better product if it talked to Google
directly.

As far as a price, for a preference pane, I think it should be roughly
$14.95 -> $19.95. Anything over for a small syncing service is a little
much.

I mean, I can do kGTD syncing from OmniOutliner to iCal for $0 using
Kinkless. I can also subscribe to other calendars for free. Keep it
cheap and watch people snap it up.

BZ

[CraigF]

I believe you've already answered that there is a dependency on
SpanningSync's servers as a conduit between iCal and Google Calendar,
but no data is retained once the sync completes.

Based on that, I'm assuming that this will be subscription-based.
Since .Mac is $99/year (or less, if you shop around), and that provides
Syncing, iDisk, web-hosting, and email, then I think Spanning Sync will
need to come in significantly lower. I'd pay $20/year, and I hope that
would cover a household. If we'd need to pay per person, then I think
there needs to be a family discount.

I can't wait for the beta to be released. This is exactly what I've
been waiting for, and had it existed in April, I would have kept my
Windows Mobile 5 phone and MissingSync (assuming that MissingSync and
SpanningSync can work together--I don't see why not).

[Skrud]

I'd like to see a one-time fee of something like $15 - $20.

Subscriptions weird me out, because then it feels like I have to commit
to using the application for the full term of the subscription. Mind
you, I'd just as easily spend $20 on an app that I'd never use, leading
to the exact same outcome... it's just that I don't want to have to
continue to think about paying for something after I've already paid
for it.

It's kind of like going to a fast food restaurant, paying up front then
eating you food -- versus going to a fancy restaurant and accumulating
a huge bill.

Should Spanning Sync be Fast Food Software? Or Fancy Restaurant
Software?

-Skrud

[designbot]

The highest price I would pay without hesitating for a simple
preference pane like this would be around $10. It's a fantastic and
necessary service (this basic idea was my submission to My Dream App),
but I'd be surprised if Google isn't working on something like this
themselves. In addition, it will probably be rendered obsolete once
Leopard & Google introduce support for two-way syncing via the CalDAV
standard (which is, as Dick Cheney might say, a "no-brainer").

I don't think anybody is hankering to replace their .Mac subscription
with another annual subscription fee. This should be a one-time
purchase, and it should be under (ideally, well under) $20. Trying to
get greedy will cut into a lot of your impulse sales.

Just my opinion.

On Nov 2, 9:07 am, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

[tealv6]

I can't wait for this App/Utility!! Having said that, I CAN wait to pay
$20 bucks for it.

I love shareware or small start up groups that take and fill in that
"missing" puzzle piece. Do I think it's worth what large commercial
companies get. No. I still think killer little products like this are
great @ $9.99 or close. Maczot and a few other indies have shown us
that small usually means more personal and better products. I favor
that over anything! I sync my calendar and the GF's via Google
Notifier, with very little issues. It's on all my machines and it's
free. Do I want something that works with iCal, yes. Will I pay premium
dollar for it, not if I can do the same thing for free.

I have many shareware apps in my toolbox, and I'm looking forward to
adding this one if the price is good.

[DF]

I0$/y (Euro/y) sounds reasonable to me.

[vincent....@gmail.com]

On Nov 2, 9:07 am, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please post your thoughts about pricing to this discussion thread
> keeping in mind two questions. First, what do you think a fair price
> is? And second, what do you think other people will think a fair price
> is?

If you are considering a subscription service, I wouldn't really be
interested in paying much more than $10/year (US).

If you are considering a one-time purchase which relies on Spanning
servers in order to work, I wouldn't be interested in paying more than
$20 for this product. My thinking is that if Spanning goes out of
business, or simply stop supporting Sync (or if Google somehow boxes
you out of the market through API changes, etc), then my purchase is
worthless.

If you are considering a one-time purchase which communicates directly
with Google's servers, I might go as high as $30, but again, I'd be
reluctant to pay much more than that, for similar reasons as above.

[tvongaza]

If it goes through your servers I wouldn't purchase the software,
period. There is no need, google supplies all the API's, all the logic
can be coded into a regular application and a go between only worries
me. To be honest, it is a pretty simple little application and if it
is successful I'm sure someone will write a competitor, imho keep the
quality high, release a stand alone version for reasonable one time
price (ie $15-30), and don't pump our data through another server.

And nice work, can't wait to try it.

Tys

[Lance Weber]

I'm with the crowd hoping for an installed app that will conduct all
the syncing directly between mac-google. I'd happily pay up to $30
every couple of years for a new version.

[Lance Weber]

Sorry for the multiple posts but I just had a thought. If you really do
end up pumping this through your servers, why not use AdSense during
the sync process? Your monetization model might actually look better
that way than via subcription.

By the way, this still doesn't mean I'm not advocating for the prior
solution! :)

[mesta...@gmail.com]

I think the sweet spot is about $15. Let's call it $14.99.

[Alex]

I, too, would agree that this should NOT be a subscription service and
it should in no way go through your servers. If this does go through
your servers, you should make sure people know that. I, for one, will
not be buying this if if the above is true.
However, if the app is standalone, direct to google, I think I'd pay
even as much as $50. Obviously this isn't the easiest thing in the
world to accomplish, seeing as how you're the only one to do this, so I
would gladly pay.

But no subscriptions and no server-in-the-middle.

[Buster99]

Great app if it works as planned - can't wait to try it out. I'm with
the other folks who are turned off my subscriptions. I will happiliy
pay $15 - $20, but would probably not pay a similar amount for a
subscription if I had to turn around a do it again next year. I guess
if the subscription were like $5 I'd go for it, but I honestly think
you would do better by asking your customers for a bit more for a one
time purchase. For me Spanning Sync will be a handy and
much-appreciated tool, but I don't have to have it. Looking forward to
the beta.

[Ricky]

As a simple preference pane, I would be happy to pay $10-15, but not
much more. This is a program that does one thing (although a very
important thing) and would be difficult to market at a much higher
price. For me $15 is the sweet spot.

[Jeff]

This could be a very popular, high-volume "applet" if done correctly. I
think the subscription approach would be a mistake. You can always plan
on regular "updates" annually or something like that, but the whole
subscription thing leaves a bad taste (fear of committment?). It needs
to be a direct-connect also. If 3rd party servers start getting
involved your customer base is going to shrink exponentially. We live
in a paranoid age.

Price: $15-$20, certainly no more. There are other options available,
some of them free, but if SpanningSync stays focused and does what it's
supposed to do better than the alternatives it could be huge!

betabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabetabeta!!!

[rodom...@gmail.com]

I think you guys should do it monthly (or yearly). Afterall, I imagine
you'll be constantly refining the service, and that's the kind of
situation where I think it's fair and advisable for a company to charge
over time.

I may be way off base here (only others can know), but I think you
should offer a free version. It'll attract users to you and provide
valuable experience and allow people to use the service before they pay
for it on a non-trial basis. Now this is the part in question, I guess
- I don't know about everyone else, but I have multiple Google
Calendars: One each for Exercise, School, Work and Social. So how about
1 calendar syncing for free, and then a cascading price from there.

I suppose that system might present technical challenges as well.

But based on the video, I'd pay for it.

Cheers.

On Nov 2, 6:07 am, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

[db]

Does anyone here not think Apple will provide this built into iCal at a
future date? Seems like an obvious direction, even if it "conflicts"
with .Mac. Isn't Google on your Address Bar above?

[Scorpion]

I'd probably have to say "not more than $10". Above that I will not pay
for the program, and I really think that many other also will just use
some pirated version then.

My suggestion is that you arrange some kind of pre order system, where
the price might be around $5-$7. There are tons of people who would buy
it right now.

When the release goes public final, raise the price to maybe $10-$15.

This is just my $0.02

[airphloo]

One time fee of $10-$15.

On Nov 2, 6:07 am, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

[stk]

Hello,

as long as Spanning Sync "only" relies to Google Calender and not to
any WebDAV-Service it's (for me) not worth a penny. If I could use my -
so far - used WebDAV-Server (which can easily run on any Mac in my
internal network) I'm willing to pay 10 - 20 $/€, depending on
licence-volume. I have several customers which would be grateful for
such a tool and all of them would need at least 5 licences for their
network.

Best regards Stefan

[Rob]

With the API being freely avaiable, charging more than $9.95 as a
one-off will just encourage others to do it themselves. Then numbers
will be big enough for $10 to be more than profitable.

This sort of thing really should be donationware IMHO

[captaink]

at some point Google will support CalDav... and presumably iCal will
support that on its OS X application -- and then what?

Spanning Sync will add little value. Right now the product offers a
solution to an obvious gap, i would recommend that they keep the price
reasonable, e.g. $10.

additional opportunities to synch GMail and other services could make
this a good tool.

Suresh

[David Chartier]

On 11/3/06, captaink <suresh...@gmail.com> wrote:

at some point Google will support CalDav... and presumably iCal will
support that on its OS X application -- and then what?

 Apple provides the ability for 3rd parties to build their own syncing abilities like this by opening Syncing Services to them, but they don't built it themselves. Case in point: Entourage. The MacBU (Business Unit) at Micrososft had to build their own software that used Syncing Services to sync Entourage calendars and iCal - Apple didn't make it for them, because there is absolutely no point for Apple to do so. They want you to use iCal, not Google Calendar. Yes Google's CEO is on their board now, but that doesn't mean we're going to see Goople anytime soon - they're still a business, and Apple turning iCal into iGoogleCal makes absolutely no business sense.

[David Chartier]

On 11/3/06, Rob <robertja...@gmail.com> wrote:

With the API being freely avaiable, charging more than $9.95 as a
one-off will just encourage others to do it themselves. Then numbers
will be big enough for $10 to be more than profitable.

I highly doubt many of Spanning Sync's potential users are going to pick up a 'Cocoa for Beginners' book if they're unhappy with the app's price. They'll either come to terms with the price and pony up or not buy.

[andr...@gmail.com]

While I would not object to paying anything up to $25 for this software
(assuming it works, i've not used it yet but it seems like a great
idea) If you don't give it away for free someone will just come along
and do it for free anyway. Between Apple, Google and some student who
likes cocoa programming that's going to happen at some point.

Jon

[Ghent]

You'd pay $20/year, but very few other people would!

[joelsanda]

> We're starting with the idea that a yearly subscription to Spanning
> Salesforce will cost much less than .Mac (which is US$99.95) but
> somewhat more than "free".

I'm a little turned off by the idea of a subscription, but then I've
paid for .mac for three years (I doubt I will renew my membership after
this year's expired because I see little value in it). If it's a
subscription that runs through Spanning Sync servers I'd likely
consider not using the application - not because I'm worried about the
security of my calendar (guess what world ... I work 8 - 5!) but its
just something else that gets between me and the solution (it's now two
servers and just one).

Having said that, a stand alone application that synced one iCal and
Google Calendar I'd say should be free or darn cheap. May $5 - $10. An
unlimited or up to ten I'd pay $25 - $30 for. I would not pay for that
an annual subscription fee that sent data through Spanning Sync and
Google servers, though.

[Bryanmc]

I too would be out if it's a subscription. I

I'd pay $15 for this.

On Nov 3, 7:18 pm, "joelsanda" <joelsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We're starting with the idea that a yearly subscription to Spanning
> > Salesforce will cost much less than .Mac (which is US$99.95) but

> > somewhat more than "free".I'm a little turned off by the idea of a subscription, but then I've

[db]

On Nov 3, 9:45 am, "David Chartier"

>I highly doubt many of Spanning Sync's potential users are going to pick up
> a 'Cocoa for Beginners' book if they're unhappy with the app's price.

Where can I get that book?

[db]

On Nov 3, 9:42 am, "David Chartier"

>Apple didn't make it for them, because
> there is absolutely no point for Apple to do so.

Bt this is because it is M$, not Google.

>They want you to use iCal,
> not Google Calendar. Yes Google's CEO is on their board now, but that
> doesn't mean we're going to see Goople anytime soon - they're still a
> business, and Apple turning iCal into iGoogleCal makes absolutely no
> business sense.

I think Apple wants iCal to be the standard local repository of such
data. If there is an argument to be made, it is that Apple would want
you to use .Mac rather than Google.

Either way, Google is a force to contend with, and they are free and
use open standards, something Apple can't ignore for long.

[db]

On Nov 3, 9:29 pm, "Bryanmc" <brya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I too would be out if it's a subscription.

Subscription or regular updates, what's the effective difference?? I
say it will soon be free, from Apple or Google. (Don't you think some
Google employee is using their 20% free time working on it as we debate
this?

[David Chartier]

On 11/3/06, db <dancin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Either way, Google is a force to contend with, and they are free and
use open standards, something Apple can't ignore for long.

iCal is already using a standard format. In fact it's named after the standard: ical. I'm not sure which came first - the standard or Apple's iCal, but they're already on board. I'm simply arguing that it isn't in Apple's interests to spend all the engineering time and money to make iCal - a desktop calendar solution integrated into Mac OS X - work with Google Calendar - a web-based service from a company who's entire business is rooted in web services. While the end result - which is something that lets people keep track of events and appointments - is one in the same, the approaches from these two companies couldn't *be* more different than apples and oranges, no pun intended: Apple makes great software *in order to sell hardware that's marked up with a premium price.* Google makes web software to get people interested in their services and *click on targeted ads.*

In this context, the Crystal Ball says iGoogleCal is: "not likely."

[basye]

Well after the "Disco" fiasco (paying money for shareware which should
have remained a free beta, basically
does no more than finder and yet was hyped to the galaxy by the Zots
and Disco's developers), I won't be
spending a dime until this software can prove that it performs as well
or better than it's "hype".

So as for pricing a "beta", I'd say it needs to be free until the
community can truly recommend it is worth
paying for in its present state of development.

And when it is ready, I wouldn't wish to pay anymore than $10 for a
basically silent app.

[MikeCurtis]

What do I think a fair price is:

Either a one time fee of no more than $30.

What do I think others will think a fair price is:

Probably $19.99.

Subscription based: $20-$50/hr, others will probably cap at $30/yr
But it all boils down to The Moment Of Need.

Last year I bought a $1000, single function application...because I
needed it and it was the cheapest option that gave me what I needed.

I never opened it - that project went away.

But at that critical juncture, I NEEDED it.

But software is about problem solving, and problem solving is about
making painful things go away.

And here the problem is how much, how badly, do you need to sync those
two calendars?

How long would it take you to do it by hand on a regular basis?

If there's no other solution, then it is worth whatever your time/pain
is worth to sync those if it is crucial or desirable. If crucial, pay
more, if desirable, how desirable?

Even though there are APIs from both companies, truth is they are not
well documented and not stable. So web services make a GREAT solution
to this problem - ever upgraded on the fly.

The catch is also this - is this a big enough problem to make it worth
the effort for the developer? If they can't recoup a decent amount of
money for the effort, the product either won't happen at all, or will

For those who say it isn't worth much...how bad do you need it, since
you're on a forum talking about it? Clearly, you need it pretty bad to
sign up for a google group account, subscribe to the group, and post on
it.

So quit yer whinin' and pony up.

-mike curtis

[MikeCurtis]

Oh, and to those that say "it'll be free next year" -

Ummm...no. Why on earth would Apple. that charges about $100/yr for the
web services package, want to make it easy to use/work with the free
one from Google?

It isn't in their interest. I back the other person saying that.

And even if it were free next year, this is in beta NOW.

-mike

[Bryanmc]

.Mac is much, much more than a way to sync your iCals. It I don't
think it would be against their interest to have a way to sync iCal to
Google Calander, in fact it might even sell more Macs.

[David Chartier]

On 11/4/06, Bryanmc <bry...@gmail.com> wrote:

.Mac is much, much more than  a way to sync your iCals.

Yes but at its heart, it's still designed to *keep you using Mac OS X software,* not someone else's. This is why iPhoto doesn't have native support for Flickr, Picasa Web Albums and MSN Photos. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing - I'm a .Mac member 4 years running who just renewed two weeks ago. I'm just trying to provide some sensibility here. Spanning Sync isn't going to receive *any* competition from Apple anytime soon. Period. *Possibly* from Google, but even that is highly doubtful - their *web services* are targeted at people who typically have an internet connection. Hence Google Calendar's manifestation as a *web service* instead of a desktop application.

[vincent....@gmail.com]

Why does Apple have to be the one providing a free sync? The
open-source community has show that not only are they capable of real
innovation, but also of fantastic (and sometimes lousy) imitation.

Even if Apple isn't the one providing it, eventually someone is going
to come along with competition to Spanning, whether it be free or not.

[Ricky]

Ahhhh!!! No monthly fee! Not worth it.

On Nov 3, 2:43 am, "rodomont...@gmail.com" <rodomont...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[jon...@gmail.com]

Absolutely NOT subscription. One off payment with free updates for $15.
Saying that, I am really looing forward to this and judging by the
comments, will be a killer app!
Jon

[Jay]

Put the beta out for free and let "everyone" try it. I think you'll
get a better feel for what the demand is for it and what people are
willing to pay. Right now all we have is a video to determine what it
does, but once its out we can all "play" to see if it suits our dynamic
needs you'll know for sure.

Based on what I think it does - I think your going to get $10-20 one
time fee for it. Competitors are going start popping up too - and if
.Mac gets in bed with Google (like some think) I'm not sure Spanning
Sync will survive (unless of course you market your solution to Apple).

Google and Mac relations:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061010090147.shtml

[cwood]

Jay,

To be clear, that's exactly what we'll be doing. There will be a (free)
private beta limited to the first 1300 people who signed up, then a
(free) public beta that will include anyone who wants to participate.
Only once we're comfortable that the product is of high enough quality
to be called 1.0 will we start charging for it. The question about
pricing is how much it should cost at that point.

Regards,
Charlie

PS. Thanks to everyone for their passionate feedback.

[designbot]

The original poster had it backwards when he wrote "at some point

Google will support CalDav... and presumably iCal will support that on

its OS X application." CalDAV support in iCal is not hypothetical; it's
the main feature on the Leopard iCal page
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ical.html>. The only question is
whether Google will eventually add support for the CalDAV standard as
well. If they do, that's it, job's over. Apple & Google won't need to
make some kind of special iGoogleCal hybrid; it will just work--much
like one-way syncing works now because they both support the ical
standard.

On Nov 4, 3:54 am, "David Chartier" <dcha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/3/06, db <dancingbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Either way, Google is a force to contend with, and they are free and

> > use open standards, something Apple can't ignore for long.iCal is already using a standard format. In fact it's named after the

[txra...@gmail.com]

Hmmm...I want it, will participate in free public beta, got there too
late for private beta, but will probably drop once the 1.0 version goes
out. I like others would pay for it but not for subscription service.
Don't know if your aware of the headaches you are setting yourself up
for in requiring everything to go through your servers. 24/7 support
and uptime is not a cake walk. You will probably end up spending more
time on the support and uptime then you will on new features. If you
have not already I would make sure you have the fall back postion
mapped out so that if you need to you can cut it loose and go with a
standalone solution.

Best wishes!

[johnl...@gmail.com]

I don't want it subscription based. I reckon $15- $20 I wont be
prepared to pay anything unless i can test it first though

[ALK]

i would probably allocate $10 or so to this tool.. while it's helpful
it's not essential and moreover there will be many similar things that
will most likely be free...

[LH]

I think that 10 €/$ is the max i would pay for a preference pane;
even if the fonction is so Coooool.
10% of a FULL single OSX license is a good price, i think.

[David Chartier]

It's a great thing most of our bosses don't issue the same threats to us when they walk into work every day. "Bob, I'd recommend you start working for only $X/hour, otherwise some open source punk is going to walk in and do the same work for free."

Great software has value. Customer service when you need it has value. I'm not saying OSS can't be good, but "let's make everything free, weee!" doesn't exactly work as a business model for plenty of businesses, and quite a few of their customers as well.

[mightymouse]

I honestly think that this should be freeware. I know, I know, you guys
are trying to make money here, but you can make a lot more money though
advertising etc. through your website and/or through other means.

If you think about it, this piece of software is simply a link between
two essentially free pieces of software. Why pay for a link?

And, this will also benefit the cause of a greater mac audience because
of the general impression by pc users that most good mac software isn't
free.

And most people who would use this software could be students or low
income business users who would like to have online synching on their
side but arent' prepared to shell out money for a little app that
allows online synching.

So I would say taht it's between whether or not you want a large user
base and high publicity or a small user base and a whole load of people
who may try to get it for free.

[vincent....@gmail.com]

On Nov 12, 7:36 pm, "mightymouse" <spheredesi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I honestly think that this should be freeware. I know, I know, you guys
> are trying to make money here, but you can make a lot more money though
> advertising etc. through your website and/or through other means.

And how would advertising pay for the product, why would people keep
coming back to their website? You download it, install it, maybe go
back for an update now and again, but that's not enough traffic to pay
for anything. And what are these "other means"? Selling Blood Plasma?

> If you think about it, this piece of software is simply a link between
> two essentially free pieces of software. Why pay for a link?

Because you need the link.

sean

[Frank Rosquin]

I too am out if this is subscription based, or requires an in-between
server.

I'd be willing to pay around $15 to $20 for this app, and maybe say an
occasional (every 2 or so years?) $7.5 for major updates?

Frank

[cdaniel...@gmail.com]

I would pay $30 if it were a one time fee. I think anything more, or
if it includes a subscription fee, starts to border on .Mac service ...
which in that case, would actually be a better deal.

I think most users would be willing to pay somewhere in the $10-20
range, as it's still kind of an 'impulse buy'. Once you cross the $20
line, I think things get a bit cloudier.

[stephenh]

I think if you're going to charge more than $10, you should consider a
family package (4-5 licenses) so members of the same household can sync
to a common calendar.

[mightymouse]

Notice the points I said after- if people really respect the software
they use and really see its value in their lives they would probably
feel obligated to donate or click on ads.

The more publicity it gets, the more people will visit the website.
There's a huge internet audience out there. There will always be people
coming to the site, even if they aren't mac users- no need for people
to come back.

On Nov 12, 8:03 pm, "vincent.antone...@gmail.com"

<vincent.antone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 7:36 pm, "mightymouse" <spheredesi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I honestly think that this should be freeware. I know, I know, you guys
> > are trying to make money here, but you can make a lot more money though

> > advertising etc. through your website and/or through other means.And how would advertising pay for the product, why would people keep

> coming back to their website? You download it, install it, maybe go
> back for an update now and again, but that's not enough traffic to pay
> for anything. And what are these "other means"? Selling Blood Plasma?
>
> > If you think about it, this piece of software is simply a link between

> > two essentially free pieces of software. Why pay for a link?Because you need the link.
>
> sean

[vincent....@gmail.com]

On Nov 25, 3:07 am, "mightymouse" <spheredesi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Notice the points I said after- if people really respect the software
> they use and really see its value in their lives they would probably
> feel obligated to donate or click on ads.

HA! That's funny....

sean

[bleaus]

I would not pay a yearly subscription for this product. I would say
$10 would be the max that I would pay for this app, even though it
seems to be a good one.

I can only assume it will be a short time until some one else writes an
app like this that interacts directly with Google and puts it out there
for free.

[jd]

I've dreamt about this application. For $15 I'd buy it in a second. For
$20 I'd buy it within 5 or 10 minutes. For $30 I'd probably buy it
after thinking for a couple days.

I think most other people would be willing to pay less than me. (I
don't many people who are as anal as me in using calendars, let alone
as eager as me to sync iCal and Google Cal.)

But If it were a subscription service I'd think to myself "WTF?!" and
would wait for a stand-alone application. Google and Apple provide
these great calendars without a monthly fee. A go-between syncing
function, as useful as it would be and as much as I want it, should not
be forced into being a web-based subscription service. A subscription
service should be a subscription service for a reason, not just to get
a monthly fee from the user.

>From what you've released so far on your blog, it looks like your
implementation of this will be perfect. Personally, I think that
forcing it into a subscription model would completely ruin it.

[matgeek]

I would have to say the only reason I don't use .Mac at the moment is
the yearly subscription fee... I don't mind making purchases and then
perhaps paying a small upgrade fee for a whole new version with
completely new features.

Because your app offers one service(for now), which is not reliant upon
anything that costs money, I think people will feel like they are
paying too much if they have to pay each and every year.

I could see myself paying $20 for the app, and perhaps $10 for a major
upgrade (like address book support).

Cheers,
matgeek

[eventualbuddha]

I'd be willing to pay $10 without even thinking about it as long as
it's standalone software. If it's a subscription service it'd have to
do quite a bit more for me to pay for it (like Address Book syncing,
and something else I haven't even thought of yet) since the pain I feel
at not being able to sync iCal with Google Calendar is not greater than
the pain of knowing that I'm paying for this subscription.

If it's really easy and slick without problems I'd be willing to go up
to $20, though $15 is probably a more reasonable number.

-bd

[samj]

As a business user I would prefer to pay a certain amount per user per
year and receive good support and upgrades. This is the type of
product I don't want to have loaded with features - it needs to work
seamlessly in the background and do a single task well; I'm happy to
continue paying even if it just gives me support and bugfix releases.

I am however concerned about the intermediary servers which appear to
be in place to enforce a subscription model. This is disingenuous and
introduces for me a new hurdle in terms of having to assess the
security (confidentiality, integrity and availability) of your servers
as well as your software. Already capacity problems are interfering
with my ability to use the service (I can't use it at all because your
servers are not currently accepting new registrations, but I know
Google's servers will always be available) and at least I can keep an
eye on your software using eg littlesnitch.

Please reconsider the need for the intermediaries, even if only for a
special 'business' release.

Sam

[vrogers]

I'm curious what the purpose of this thread was, if what you learned
here is that you should charge three times what the average price
people are willing to pay. Perhaps you did some other marketing
research or perhaps you tried to compare yourself to a few
competitors. If all you are doing is comparing your product to .Mac,
then I offer this cold splash of water; as of this moment you don't
offer much to compare yourself to .Mac.

You merely provide a link between iCal and Google Calendars; a link
you justify must go through a server you provide (doesn't appear to be
the case since GSync does it without the use of a go-through server).
But lets say even if you copy every feature of .Mac, I would guess
that supply and demand meet at $40-45 per year; about half of .Mac.
Why? Because you are not Apple, you don't have the loyalty and
reputation that Apple has. These tools as a whole require a server-
based solution; yours - does not. Many of us are aware and/or use
free tools that sync Google Calendar with Outlook. Very few (if any)
require a go-through server. So perhaps this is where the
'disconnect' in pricing lies. Would you stipulate that if this was
simply a product and did not require the use of your servers, it would
be worth somewhere in the ballpark discussed in this thread?

Every few days since this pricing was announced, I have come to the
website hoping that you would reduce the price. You haven't. I would
have been willing to shell out even $25 easily (this already knowing
the pricing of GSync) and quite possibly as high as 30-35. But this
is where I stand now - I feel like you have been giving the whole beta
community the middle finger. You have been generally unresponsive to
the community as a whole regarding this issue, and to thank us for
testing the product, restoring our calendars, etc. you give us a zero
discount and a fifteen day notice to put up or shut up. I paid $40
for Parallels Desktop; a 50% off thank you from them to all of the
beta testers for testing their product. So even if you reduce your
price (I'm sure that you will have to upon the final release of GSync)
at this point I wouldn't pay. Rather than rooting for SS (the product
and the company), I will be rooting against it. Perhaps time, a new
company name and product, and new management would correct this.

BTW - I haven't read the license agreement, but how the heck can you
guarantee a lifetime server-based solution (who's life are we talking
about here). Do you actually intend to be crunching data from those
that paid the $65 three, four years down the road? Luckily you are an
LLC so you won't have to pay too great of a financial penalty (if any)
should you fold - but I hope you at least consider clarifying that a
lifetime license, rather than simply taking the approach of buyer-
beware.

Good luck with your other endeavors.

[cwood]

Rogers,

I appreciate the passion that you put into this post. As I've said
several times, if we wanted to make software for people who
fundamentally just don't care, we'd be writing Windows apps. That
being said, it's clear that you're not interested being a customer of
our company, which is as it should be. I wouldn't want anyone who felt
we were "merely" providing the service we do, much less "giving him
the middle finger" to pay us money for anything.

We have put an extraordinary amount of effort not only into creating
our service but also into treating our customers, our beta testers,
and even our competitors--who post on this discussion group under
various guises--with respect and professional courtesy. If you feel
you have been mistreated or dealt with unfairly, please contact me
directly at charli...@spanningsync.com.

Regards,
Charlie