WOW - Crazy Pricing!
Buster99
$65 forever. SS is a nice little app, but this is nuts. As someone
pointed out over on TUAW, $65 is closer to the pricing of iLife of
iWork suites. The developers have a right to charge what they want,
but this seems pretty greedy and way out of line with the prices of
other small apps. Good luck, I sure won't be paying this kind of
money.
Robert D.
really great, but this shouldn't be a subscription, and $65 is way too
much. If this app cost $20, I'd be all over it. As it is, the price
has put it out of my range, so I'll be uninstalling it.
Shame, really.
Kyle
to be out of beta. In my expirience with the app it does not work in a
dependable enough fashion to pay such a price for it. Also the amount
of functionality you get for $65 is not equitable. The developers do
and should have a right to charge for their work, but this is way to
high for what you get.
thirstyrobot
prices are outrageous. The developer should have spent a little time
testing his pricing strategy before dropping this on us like this.
We're not in the minority here in our reaction...have a look at the
discussion and reaction from others on <a href="http://www.tuaw.com/
2007/03/13/spanning-sync-ical-google-calendar-pricing/#comments">TUAW</
a>
Buster99
for a competitor like gSync to work out the bugs and still charge a
reasonable price. Has anyone tried gSync yet?
Buster99
app. You have done a great job of developing SS, and you have been
responsive to bugs and input. I don't think I am alone when I say
that this is not about just whining 'cause now we have to pay for
something that used to be free. I would happily send you $15 or even
$20 today and be proud that I was an early user of this app. But $65
just seems short-sighted, like you are trying to wring as much money
from your users as you can get away with, instead of finding a
sustainable price for a great little app. Thanks for reading.
cwood
Thanks to you and everyone else for the posts. Like I said in the
announcement, Mac users are passionate--which rocks.
Let me first say the price for the service is $25/year. We think
that's not only fair, but also affordable by just about anyone. A
small number of very vocal users objected early on to subscription-
based pricing, so we added a one-time payment option for them.
Our goal is to offer a valuable service at a fair price. Given the
number of people using Spanning Sync, I think we're delivering value.
But of course, putting a dollar amount on that value is something each
person has to do for himself. We think $25 is a great deal for the
ability to seamlessly connect Mac OS X to Google Apps, but if you
don't that's certainly up to you. To put it in perspective, I paid $69
for SnapzPro and $35 for SubEthaEdit, both of which I use every day.
Sure, I would have preferred to pay less, but they're both a vital
part of my daily routine and I decided that the prices their
developers had set were worth it to me.
I should also thank all the people who have already bought Spanning
Sync subscriptions this morning. We passed our first-day sales goal
within 45 minutes of posting the announcement. We strongly value our
customers and appreciate the value they've assigned to our work.
Regards,
Charlie
roge...@gmail.com
You can try to justify it all you want -- and saying sales goals were
passed doesn't mean jack when we don't know what they are -- but the
vast majority of people are going to think this is too expensive. On
the TUAW story about this, for example, there are 22 comments...every
single comment, 100% of them, opines that the price is too high. As
one observed, it's half the cost of the OS X operating system just for
a syncing application, and one that still isn't perfect at that. I was
part of the beta program, and while I think it's a very nice app I
will never pay those prices for it. I was hoping for $20, maybe $30 at
the absolute most, which is about on target with what a lot of people
were expecting. $65 is crazy.
I too am a developer, and we sometimes grapple with pricing. We want
to make our applications available to as many people as possible but
still be compensated fairly. There will always be people that feel
you're charging too much, but they're usually a manageable minority.
In this case, I think even you have to admit that this is not a
minority -- a huge percentage of the people that would like to have
Spanning Sync think it is overpriced. And you can't argue with that.
What you can argue with is what kind of sales volume increase you
would have compared to your current numbers if you just sold SS
outright for a fair price in the $20s. Given the number of people who
want the app but hate your current pricing, I bet it would at least
triple your sales, which would compensate for the drop in price. Then,
more people would have Spanning Sync -- and that's that many more
people that could tell their friends and in turn generate even more
customers for you. In the long run, a lower price will make your app
much more prevalent in the market. Starting with a high price,
although it will initially get you more revenue, turns a large number
of people off. As it is, you're probably limiting your numbers even
more than you realize and reducing this to a niche app (even more so
than it already was) for the people who are really willing to cough up
$25/year (a lot of us hate subscriptions -- we already don't "own"
enough of what we use) or $65 for a single-use syncing application
(very few, I guarantee you). I think you people got greedy for quick
money and didn't think about the long term implications.
I know, you're going to tell me you think it's fair...fine, but with
all due respect your opinion of the price doesn't matter -- the rest
of the market is who you really have to convince if you want this
thing to really take off. And I don't see that happening with this
pricing structure.
As a developer and as someone who wants Spanning Sync, I urge you to
reconsider the pricing. You said you think the price is affordable by
just about anyone. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. I could afford it,
but I'm not going to buy it because strongly disagree with it. Add
people like me on top of people who really can't afford it -- a lot of
potential users are probably young people who don't have a lot of
money -- and you're losing a lot of customers.
Even if you rebuff all this and still have yourself convinced that you
don't need to change your pricing, you might have to reconsider as
competitors come out with what will surely be cheaper options.
Best of luck to you and your team.
Matthew
MemeSlider
talking about here. We are talking about value. Undoubtedly, there
will be people who will find good value in your current pricing, but
there seems to be a very vocal population claiming otherwise. I don't
think a single post in the TUAW thread lauded the pricing and this
thread seems to be the same. As the community speaks out and more of
their thoughts are recorded, those who seek out information on your
product before purchase are going to be coming across these posts,
which will no doubt affect their decision. Spanning Sync now equals a
million voices screaming "overpriced!" Wouldn't it have been better to
hear a million voices saying, "Spanning Sync is a great app at a fair
price!"?
For those who feel this app is overpriced, as I do, check out this
alternative:
http://gcaldaemon.sourceforge.net/index.html
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200703080908446
Besides, it is only a matter of time before Google and/or Apple make
this work without 3rd party software. Leopard?
peeweejd
> Let me first say the price for the service is $25/year. We think
> that's not only fair, but also affordable by just about anyone. A
> small number of very vocal users objected early on to subscription-
> based pricing, so we added a one-time payment option for them.
I know this is not a democracy here, and you did not ask for a poll,
but your pricing is incredibly absurd. I'm all for dropping $10-$20
on an indy app like this and have registered quite a few in the past
(Synergy, Connect360, USBOverdrive, Transmit to name a few). Both of
your pricing points are out of line.
Google or Apple can render your app useless in a heartbeat, and if you
ask me they are working on it right now. $25 is a LOT to ask for on a
product that will probably be obsolete in the near future.
Good Luck!
phl...@gmail.com
unit than $65 a unit. You can't deny that even current users (the beta
testers) are deep in sticker shock or this pricing. How do you think
it will strike the person who thinks "Oh that would be nice to have"
and casually searches for the solution.
$65 is necessity pricing. $20 is impulse pricing.
$65 will get you 10% to 20% of your current users. $20 will get you
all of them.
MacPrince
Sync. I could see $15/year and $40 for life, but these prices? No,
sorry.
The way I figure, Google Calendar will support CalDAV sooner or later,
and we'll have our synchronization paradise in Leopard.
Ronnie
I find something useful. However, I too was shocked when the pricing
for Spanning Sync was announced. I don't think I've ever paid more
than $30 for shareware and I use some good ones (Launchbar, iKey,
TextExpander, etc.) Do the math. You had more than 18,000 beta
testers and you probably had hundreds or thousands of folks, including
myself, that were watching and waiting for v. 1. If the pricing were
more reasonable, probably most of your beta testers and watchers would
buy it NOW. And at a price of $25, that would generate up to
$500,000 (@20,000 initial purchases) in revenue NOW plus as people
spread the news that amount would grow. I know you guys need to get
paid for your work, but your current pricing is going to scare lots of
folks away and you will end up making less money.
wojtekj...@gmail.com
> Our goal is to offer a valuable service at a fair price. Given the
> number of people using Spanning Sync, I think we're delivering value.
I would not take the number of individual Gcal logins passed through
your servers as the number of people using Spanning Sync. I am pretty
sure you've reached your sales target, but again - you just created
"early adopters". This group doesn't usually care about the actual
performance of the software, they are either desperately seeking a
simple solution to their problems, or just buy whatever comes to their
minds.
> We think $25 is a great deal for the
> ability to seamlessly connect Mac OS X to Google Apps,
Correction. To a _single_Google_app named Google Calendar. Spanning
Sync doesn't connect to anything else.
> don't that's certainly up to you. To put it in perspective, I paid $69
> for SnapzPro and $35 for SubEthaEdit, both of which I use every day.
Well, let me compare this in the following way: I've paid $10000 for
my car (it's a pre-owned vehicle, contrary to my Mac, yet $10k is
still quite a lot of money*. This car is just like my Mac OS X Tiger
operating system I've bought a few months ago with my computer, it's
cool, but nothing to write home twice about). I drive it quite a lot,
since my job is to keep relations with the customers. I don't need
SatNav for my car, since I have a pair of eyes and I can read a map.
However, a SatNav would allow me to save a few minutes when driving to
a city I don't know. Spanning Sync is my SatNav for the Mac OS X. Do
you think I would pay $5000 for SatNav?
No, I wouldn't.
Add-on SatNavs are way cheaper than $5000. They are 1/20th of this
price. And I still believe, that my common sense and ability to read
maps are worth more than $250, for which I could buy a decent Garmin
add-on. And I don't have to get nervous when the SatNav doesn't work.
And it errs quite often.
Oh yes, and as someone already mentioned this - my next car will have
the SatNav built-in...
* - "quite a lot of money" is much more than you expect in Polish
Apple Mac reality. I'd have to pay as much as TWICE the US price for a
Mac Mini, due to local Apple representatives' pricing policy, if I was
not lucky enough to buy it in the USofA. I pay 4 times as much as the
US people for a gallon of petrol, while earning roughly 5 times less
than my US counterpart. Still, I'm way above the average sallary in my
country and can allow myself quite a lot. But heck, I will not pay $65
once or $25 per annum for this software. This price borders with an
insult. I am really sorry to write this - please don't take it
personally.
> Sure, I would have preferred to pay less, but they're both a vital
> part of my daily routine and I decided that the prices their
> developers had set were worth it to me.
Your "expensive tools" are your own investment. Do you want your tools
to pay for themselves on the very first sales day? I don't think any
business plan presented to a potential sponsor would survive more than
30 seconds in one piece, if such statement was made in it.
I've downloaded the production version 1.0 of Spanning Sync, because I
accidentally deleted the uninstaller. I'm sorry, your much promising
piece of software had a go.
Kindest regards,
--
Wojtek
shearm
anyone who has concerns about the pricing. I understand and appreciate
what they say.)
I recall the comments on the spanning sync blog in the weeks (that
turned into months) prior to the public beta. They were practically
panting, saying they desperately needed this tool, etc. I, too, was
eager and checked back almost daily to see if the beta was available.
Once it was, I was a bit disappointed by the number of bugs. It still
aborts every now and then, which is annoying. But overall, it does
what it has promised and does it well. The cost of software has
increased, and small utilities are no exception. But this does not
seem wildly out of proportion with those increases.
The one thing I would agree with is the sentiment that purchasing the
"lifetime" subscription may be a fools choice. As folks said, the
Google/Apple universe is changing pretty rapidly. In 6 months, there
may be a google option to sync with ical. Or maybe an Apple web
calendar that is better. Or who knows.
That's why I will be paying $25 for a year's service. If at the end of
that year, nothing else has arrived, I may plunk down another $25. Or
maybe not. But $25 is reasonable, in my humble opinion, for the
convenience of linking my google calendars to ical for that time.
Mike
On Mar 13, 3:48 pm, "wojtekjakobc...@gmail.com"
Steve Clifford UK
$25 per year for what, i can subscribe to flickr for the same amount
and get something major for it, unlimited storage of my photos with
many extra features, and charging $65 one off?? Come on it only syncs
data, again i can buy a project management app (which i have) for the
$59 (free lifetime upgrades) and this makes a big difference to the
way i work, buy paying $25 per year or paying $65 one off, is a rip
off.
Syncing between Google and Outlook (windows) has been around for years
and they only cost around $20 so why pay more than a windows solution,
at the end of the day you have created a market that will allow
someone to create the same app MUCH cheaper.
Just because it's the only app that is around (at the moment) you a
taking advantage and what i love about the Mac world is great little
apps are very reasonably priced but you are way off the mark.
If your not going to rethink the pricing count me out and I will look
for a developer to look at creating an app that does the same think
and it will be cheaper, all the data is freally available from google,
i's not rocket science.
Again it's ONLY A SYNC APP nothing more
cwood
Regards,
Charlie
fvall...@gmail.com
time. Synced up my calendars to Google and was happy with the results.
Unfortunately due to some DST related issues (I also sync with a Palm
Treo which had not been patched for the recent DST changes) I needed
to reset the calendars today and start over again. So I fire up
Spanning Sync only to be greeted with a message informing me that v1.0
was released. After one days use I was ready to spend $15 or maybe $20
on this app.
But after seeing the $25 yearly/$65 lifetime nonsense I uninstalled
the app for free, and will now show a bit of patience and wait for the
now INEVITABLE competitor that will come and fill the gap with an
affordable syncing client, that is of course assuming that Apple/
Google doesn't release their own, more than likely for free, in the
near future.
Great concept, promising execution, but absolutely atrocious pricing
structure. You have a better shot of me writing my own app to do this
than see me spend $65 on your syncing conduit, and I don't even code,
which gives you an idea of how likely I am to do either. It's not even
an application, it is a syncing conduit for what amounts to a single
application. $65 for a sync conduit? Even the $40 I plopped down for
Missing Sync for my Treo hurt, at least that tries to be more than
what it is, but $65 for this?
You guys are promising developers, but absolutely pitiful businessmen.
Involve someone who can explain how pricing and market sweet spots
work because clearly for every ounce of competence you have in realm
of development you are missing massive sales IQ sense.
With any luck you guys will smarten up, and VERY quickly, or you will
be spending more time defending yourself than further developing this
application as well as any others you might have planned. The Mac
community is for the most part both an affluent and a generous one,
but don't take us for free spending idiots, because before you know it
your hot app of the moment will be an after thought, and without some
brand loyalty so will you.
Good luck!
JHN
had numerous problems early on with google sending out notifications
for synced entries. Plus, I know a number of my employess (including
me) who all wanted to be able to use this to sync their entourage
calendars with iCal and then with Google. But many of us have posted
here, we've forwarded emails, and created error reports, but have
never actually heard word one of a fix. We've heard lots of "It is
our top priority". But no actual results. So am I going to pay $65
for a buggy application with no fix in sight? No.
Plus, please don't treat all your loyal beta testers like they are
idiots. You say that the cost is $25. But it's not - after two or
three years (which as long as this stays a good app is not
unreasonable for people to own it for) this is a $75 or a $100 app.
That is what i think people are responding to. It seems like it
should be more in the $35 range for such simple application. I have
bought far larger, more complex, and more refined applications for
less than $65
Hate to have to sign off,
JHN
On Mar 13, 3:31 pm, "fvalletu...@gmail.com" <fvalletu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
captaink
responses on this forum have been well over the top...
cwood
Regards,
Charlie
cwood
We're certainly sorry to lose you as a prospective customer, but value
is in the eye of the buyer and if the value you perceive isn't greater
than the cost, you've made the right decision. For the record, we
believe we've solved the errant email issue with the total rewrite of
the attendee support that we did for b16.
Regards,
Charlie
bleaus
I'm sure that another app will be along shortly (before the end of the
year) that will do the exact same thing, and probably more.
The relationship between Apple and Google (and all the talk
surrounding it) leads me to believe there will be a built in solution
sometime soon. Perhaps even one that can sync your photos and
documents.
I loved the beta, but I'm not convinced on the price for v. 1.
jlgoolsbee
I think your pricing scheme is a huge mistake, and it shows that you
obviously didn't listen to anybody who posted here on the subject,
however small you may claim that group of people to be.
Granted, you will flaunt your sales in my face, and tell me that I'm
wrong... but you will have sales only because there are people who
need (not want) this service, and will pay whatever is necessary.
You're forgetting about the normal users, the people who want - not
need - your service... normal users don't want to pay a yearly fee for
an application, and also don't want to pay through the teeth to not
have to pay the yearly fee.
Consider which is the better position to be in: to have a small user-
base that pays the high cost for your application, or to have a huge
user-base paying a reasonable fee? By the way, $65 is not a
reasonable fee by any measure of single-purpose service-based
applications...
Maybe there's a different solution here... maybe a cheaper version
that only syncs a maximum of 5 calendars, once/twice a day, and to one
computer/gmail account... etc. Makes sense because it WOULD use LESS
of your "service", which can be the only reason for your high price.
I know you won't reply to this message (or any of the others of the
same sentiments here), because you only reply to messages that
compliment or congratulate you and your team... but I have to add my
sentiments here to add to the apparently "small group" in the hopes
that maybe this won't be a "small group" any longer.
airphloo
long, you can go for a while yet. These guys are taking advantage of
their monopolist position and have even stated that they plan to
charge more because of the passion of Mac users (perceived inelastic
demand). These guys need to make a living but don't overpay just
because you are impatient.
loudestnoise
anything for software or services, and these people will complain all
day long about how expensive things are. I on the other hand, find
Spanning Sync extremely useful, and since it is extremely less
than .mac's yearly subscription I paid my $25. I would have liked to
gone ahead and paid the $65, but I'm a poor college student, so $25 is
all I could afford right now. Perhaps next year.
avan...@gmail.com
really matters is how many people end up buying the application vs.
how many people would have bought it. So I just wanted to add that I
have been waiting for months for this day, following every blog post,
and planning to buy the moment it was released. Then I read the
pricing. Count me out; no way I'm paying that much for this
functionality.
Andrew
On Mar 14, 12:36 am, "loudestnoise" <loudestno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think $25 is fair and reasonable. I paid because I wanted this
> functionality w/o using .mac from Apple. I would have paid the $65,
> but I'm a poor college student.
>
> On Mar 13, 11:11 am, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
thirstyrobot
> I think that there will always be people who are unwilling to pay
> anything for software or services, and these people will complain all
Hang on a minute. It is a mistake to assume---and rather disingenuous
to state---that if someone has a problem with a pricing strategy they
must be some kind of malcontent. I would have *gladly* paid for a
licence if the price was reasonable. But in my estimation, it is not.
And clearly I'm not alone feeling this way. I'm happy to hear that the
developer has met their one-day sales target, but if the reaction
we've seen today is even a half-accurate sample of how Mac users at-
large are going to respond, then I suspect that the folks at SS are
going to have a much tougher time (and tougher than they seem to
realize) in selling this over the longer term.
Chris
uninstalled it.
On the plus side, maybe an opensource app with similar functionality
will come out of all this...
Ben Liong
service instead of a stand alone application. Right now, your sync
goes through the spanning sync servers first, and then the google
servers. That was why they have bandwidth issues when the program was
first released for public beta, and that was why they needed to add
servers and things like that.
$25 for a year implies that you are paying not only for their
application, but their bandwidth. This means two things to me:
1) $25 a pop covers their cost of bandwidth, and if their application
would go to google's Calendar servers directly in the first place, $25
would not have been justifiable. It almost seem like they are
enforcing this so that they can have a monthly subscription model.
2) If they were to go out of business, this software that I paid for
(if I so choose to pay for the life-long $65 version) would stop
working. If I get Missing Sync for Palm and software like those works
even if the company goes out of business.
All in all, I fail to see the value proposition for a subscription
model. I don't see the point of keep paying for bandwidth that is
unnecessary in the first place. I'd paid for Flickr service, and I'd
paid for safari-bookstore thingy, but those are different in that I
keep getting values each month.
--Ben.
P.S. Is there a safe way to remove the application?
cwood
I think you've misunderstood something. We've certainly don't "plan
charge more because of the passion of Mac users". In fact, we've tried
to make Spanning Sync as affordable as possible to the greatest number
of people.
Regards,
Charlie
cwood
Thanks for the post. I'm interested to know how much you would pay for
Spanning Sync, and what you would use it for.
Regards,
Charlie
cwood
subscribe to our service are "malcontents". They're simply people for
whom the cost exceeds the perceived value. But I am saying that there
is a segment of the community for whom any cost would exceed the
perceived value, and that therefore those people wouldn't subscribe to
the service regardless of cost.
For example, another poster on this group (see
http://groups.google.com/group/spanningsync/msg/429d64a0f961092f)
explained that he thinks, "Spanning Sync is a great product," but that
he is, "unfortunately, a supporter of open source or free software,"
and therefore won't be buying a subscription. My point is that
regardless of the price of the service (unless it was free), he
wouldn't have ever been a customer of ours.
Regards,
Charlie
On Mar 14, 12:42 am, "thirstyrobot" <bloodthirstyro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Stephen
think that the value is not there at this price (myself included) will
make comments. Those who do think it worthwhile will likely make their
comments with their credit cards. Free enterprise is a wonderful
thing. This price will probably net the developers tidy revenue and
keep their server costs down, resulting in a good profit. And those of
us that don't bite get to look forward to the inevitable competition!
cwood
While I'm disappointed you won't be a customer, I do appreciate your
thoughtful participation in the community.
Regards,
Charlie
Ben Liong
other way but to pay the $25 yearly fee, spanning sync reminded me to
update to the latest version, tells me that I'm in trial mode, and
what happens afterwards? You can see the attached photo: I've got
double entries for almost all of my events in my google calendar!
cwood
If iCal doesn't yet have duplicate entries but does contain all of
your events, please open Spanning Sync, click "Reset...", choose
"Replace info on Google Calendar", click "OK", and sync. That sync
will take a while to complete, since it's replacing each event on
Google Calendar individually, but once it's done the duplicates should
be gone. If not, or if you run into any other problems, please email
us at sup...@spanningsync.com and we'll get it resolved as soon as
possible.
Regards,
Charlie
Buster99
> Please, tell me that you guys have some software that can help me
> avoid myself going into google calendar and deleting the double
> entries manually.
Sure Ben, that'll be $100 for a one time fee or $40/month to keep your
duplicates deleted.
sorry, couldn't resist.
Michael Collins
cwood
I invite you to try Spanning Sync v1.0 to see how well it works for
you. It's free for 15 days, and instructions for backing up both your
iCal and Google calendars are included in the documentation, so it's
fairly risk-free. if you run into any problems, please let us know by
sending an email to sup...@spanningsync.com and we'll get it resolved
immediately.
Regards,
Charlie
On Mar 14, 12:34 pm, "Michael Collins" <turquoisef...@gmail.com>
wrote:
jlgoolsbee
> I certainly don't mean to imply that people who choose not to
> subscribe to our service are "malcontents". They're simply people for
> whom the cost exceeds the perceived value. But I am saying that there
> is a segment of the community for whom any cost would exceed the
> perceived value, and that therefore those people wouldn't subscribe to
> the service regardless of cost.
>
> explained that he thinks, "Spanning Sync is a great product," but that
> he is, "unfortunately, a supporter of open source or free software,"
> and therefore won't be buying a subscription. My point is that
> regardless of the price of the service (unless it was free), he
> wouldn't have ever been a customer of ours.
Yeah, but you're forgetting about the people who would have paid a one-
time fee of $20-$30 (which would have been in line with 80-90% of
third-party Mac software) and would have been happy with their
purchase, and would have told their friends about this great app
called Spanning Sync... instead you've alienated those users, and the
only thing those users will be telling their friends now is how
overpriced Spanning Sync is.
razorfrog
> time fee of $20-$30 (which would have been in line with 80-90% of
> third-party Mac software) and would have been happy with their
> purchase, and would have told their friends about this great app
> called Spanning Sync... instead you've alienated those users, and the
> only thing those users will be telling their friends now is how
> overpriced Spanning Sync is.
I would have definitely been in that group. I've bought my share of
mac apps (even Snapz Pro, like you mentioned, Charlie). The difference
between an application and a sync conduit is huge though, as many have
covered before. I feel alright spending my cash on an application that
will last no matter if the company behind it vanishes, or the services
it depends on change (google, apple)..
So add me to the list of the beta testers that went through all the
challenges, the bugs, the complete resets, and the numerous support
emails to help the production, that will now be downloading the final
just for the uninstall application. Sorry Charlie, but you blew this
one.
M-Rick
which a tree generator like Onyx Tree, and for $16 I purchased ArtRage
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/18357 which is a Painter like
software. The common points between these 2 softwares is that they are
very powerfull compared to the commercial softwares they are inspired
from, and also they are very very cheap and cheaper compared to their
relative commercial equivalent.
But they are really more complexe apps that what Spanning Sync
actually does !
It is just a syncyng app, and charging it at this price just for
that ...
I wait for gSync.
cliffor...@gmail.com
unreasonable price.
Perhaps the approach being taken is to make as much money as quickly
as possible before
an open source project makes the sync feature available for free (and
error free - which spanning
sync is certainly not from my experiences). I am also un-installing.
On Mar 14, 10:32 pm, "M-Rick" <m.rick....@gmail.com> wrote:
> For $85 I got Little Stickhttp://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/22381
> which a tree generator like Onyx Tree, and for $16 I purchased ArtRagehttp://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/18357which is a Painter like
technodad
-My time is worth money. Even at a relatively modest bill-out rate of
$100/hr, if Spanning Sync saves you 40 minutes *over the life of the
app* you have broken even. One missed billable appointment would
justify the cost, let alone the time spent futzing with getting my
phone, iPod, Gcal and iCal to sync.
-Spanning sync is a service, not an application. If I find value in
their service (as above), it's in my interest to support it so it
continues.
So, I'd suggest the pricing is a simple economic decision - is your
time worth the cost or not? If not (as someone on the thread pointed
out), don't buy it.
In my case, having the ability to have all my calendars synced, and
having the ability to have my family and office admin put things on
all my calendars in a dependable way has significantly changed my
workflow. It's worth every penny (and then some.)
TD
Jeremy
Guess I will just switch to gCal only then. If you can sync, you have
internet, you have gCal.
On Mar 13, 10:56 am, "Buster99" <dko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just saw the developers have set pricing for SS - $25 per year, or
mspe...@gmail.com
M-Rick
just export my ical calendar as a backup, and then open the backup on
the computer to sync ....
it is what i did before.
So it doesn't worth the money to automate this process ...
keVn
(potentially on this very thread) to go out and start developing their
own syncing application with google calendar. I'm in the same boat,
I'm a developer, struggle with the free vs pay vs how much debate, but
as everyone else is shouting out here, what has been proposed is a
little over the top...
On Mar 14, 12:03 am, "airphloo" <p...@morphi.us> wrote:
> Everyone just hold on. You've lived without spanning sync for this
> long, you can go for a while yet. These guys are taking advantage of
> their monopolist position and have even stated that they plan to
> charge more because of the passion of Mac users (perceived inelastic
> demand). These guys need to make a living but don't overpay just
> because you are impatient.
>
> On Mar 13, 7:56 am, "Buster99" <dko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just saw the developers have set pricing for SS - $25 per year, or
thirstyrobot
> I certainly don't mean to imply that people who choose not to
> subscribe to our service are "malcontents".
To be clear, Charlie, that point was in response to remarks posted by
loudestnoise, as was indicated.
> They're simply people for whom the cost exceeds the perceived value.
That's a fine diagnosis worthy of an A on a Marketing 101 exam. But
you might wish to consider the possibility that the opposite is true--
that it is your perceived value of the product that greatly exceeds
the cost that people are willing to pay. That so many people are
taking the time to tell you why they're dumping the product suggests
to me that your user base really does want to see you do well and that
most would still be on-board if they didn't feel they were being
fleeced. Pricing is a tough, tough thing. Charge too little and you
hurt the value of your business. Charge too much and...well...you get
the picture. Since you asked somewhere in this thread what would be a
reasonable price, I'd gladly have paid $25USD for a licence. But on an
annual subscription basis? No way. Not ever. If your worry is that you
want to have an ongoing revenue stream, then add new products/new
versions on an annual basis. There's a reason why that business model
is successful.
barbican
one time $20, just as I have for dozens of other apps. I suspect you'd
get 10 times as many customers at $20 as you would at $65.
A bit of a faux pas, as some people have already paid you can hardly
lower the price now.
Good luck.
Phil
everyone at my office to use it, but at such an insane price I ended
up looking like an idiot! Thank you Spanning Sync!
Niels Kobschätzki
even though I thought: cool, you have to have that app. I got the info
that it's out to public now, downloaded it, installed it, looked at
the price and removed it again w/out trying it.
It's far to expensive for what it offers. Maybe the annual charge is
ok because it is a service but why does it have to be a service? There
are apps out there who can do it w/out being a service, those are not
so neat and integrated but those do not have to route the stuff
through other ppls servers.
Why should *I* trust Spanning Sync?
And if the app wouldn't be a service I would be willing to pay $15 -
20 for it, $25 is already a lot because it just syncs calendar data
and that's stuff that is already synced to my cell phone and my iPod.
It would be nice to have my calendars online available as well but it
is not necessary (would make it only easier to sync my calendars to my
second mac and have the stuff available if I would be online w/out one
of my macs or my mobile if I need to edit anything which is quite
rare).
Market will sort things out and Spanning Sync is the first software
I've ever seen where I read so many posts that the software is just
too expensive...actually, it's the only software I've ever read about
that ppl say it lout that it is too expensive...
Solutions to the developer would be maybe some other licensing model
like having additional educational and business licenses...
ScottRA
way too high. Looks like a really nice but not at price for 1-
function. If it also did contacts, tasks, and notes it might be worth
it. Perhaps also add docs and spreadhseets, etc.
Morfys
is steep. The marketing on their homepage makes it sound like this is
some super impressive, break-through application. Come on, it just
sync events using Apple's and Google's API's. I hope someone will
implement a open-source version. Shouldn't be too hard.
vargasa
code .. A man still needs to eat :-) I could get on this when I finish
a couple other projects as Morfy said it isn't that difficult just my
time...65 wow .... sure if you don't want to wait get it .. but either
I or someone else will code this for free or near free...
hgraves
be accepted but totally voluntary!) Should be in beta in a couple
months (unless someone beats me to it). It's not like this is rocket
science, all the API's are available as someone mentioned. Any
suggestions for a name?
> > > > money.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
extensivegroup
Seriously, up until last week I was raving about this product. Until
it went 1.0 but NOT because of the pricing -- for some reason syncing
kept saying "database is locked" -- I reported this numerous times;
uninstalled; installed, same thing. I took a look at my iCal file and
WHOA -- it had somehow spawned 30-40 new calendars (most of them
'holiday' and 'birthday').
After cleaning up everything and reverting to a solid older database,
I'm now left with debating whether or not to purchase it. I do think
it's a great product, and I don't mind the cost. You want a valuable
product, folks, you pay for it! You don't shop at Wal-Mart and have
the right to complain about the lines, or how cheap stuff is made.
You want cheap? Try GSync and wait and wait and wait for any news or
updates, if it works at all! I think the price here is completely
justifiable but would opt instead for a lower one-time charge, say
$40. Free updates forever. Or something.
Developers can charge whatever the hell they want to charge because
they (and only they) know what the product means to THEM, and you can
opt to buy or not but complaining about it is utterly worthless. It's
their time and effort and server space that is being used. And as for
"well, I was a beta tester and provided loads of feedback, blah blah
blah..." you went INTO THIS knowing that this would eventually be a
paid-for item. What did you expect? And don't even equate Myspace
and Google with SS -- they are about as close on the fiscal scale as
my guitar is to the moon.
vargasa
such as the one I may or someone else may develop as a FSF or LGPL to
walmart is a bad analogy. You do pay for what you get in some cases,
but i think software depends on a lot of factors. To say compare Open
Office to MS Office is unfair since you have a multi-million dollar
budget versus hobbies donating there time. I have seen bad code and
good code in either case, to compare a cheap solution please keep in
mind there is good and bad in pay or non-pay software. Like a bottle
of wine, I have sampled 200 dollar bottle of wine and rather buy the
$20. Taking that example, you only pay for scarcity[and a little bit
on what mainstream wine connoisseur my rate it ] not necessarily
quality[in our own opinion], as I found in my wine appreciation
courses.
If I was going to develop this application I might add feature I would
like to have where as you like to pay 65 dollars for other features
that I decide not to create that is why innovation is what fuels the
internet and supplies everyone with new products everyday. Trust me I
know I am currently have 2 personal projects and 4 work projects I am
currently developing. So next time you think of comparing software as
an corporation that is the complete opposite of what the FSF and Open
Source community stands for [not killing small business but helping
unlike Wal-Mart, Microsoft]. Systems such as Linux, FreeBSD(what MAC
OS X is founded on) are due to people donating there time for
enjoyment. People like myself do this as a living creating fair
pricing to just feed my family and enjoy life. As for this product $65
is steep when I can invest my money in a product like TaxCut (54.99)
and get back a couple hundred dollars from my taxes and use it the
next year(if taxes and politicians do not make it more difficult.).
I am going to quit my ramble now...
On Mar 16, 11:24 pm, "extensivegroup" <extensivegr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
tmac
as I saw the pricing. $10-20 dollars would have been reasonable. I
paid less for App zapper, super duper, etc etc etc, which are all much
more useful programs with a lot more functionality. would love to have
contributed to this program but you've priced yourself out of the
market.
JOnathan
Subscribing to my calendar works good enough for free for me. So much
for us poor students.
I am all for supporting OSX and Apple, but when you market your
product to the top 15%, that leaves me out.
thank you all for your hard work on this project, Incredible work.
I respect the decision to price high. Business is business. So
those who are upset please respect that.
Think about it this way, as many have stated there will likely be a
free app to do the same function within the next3-6 months. This team
has put in considerable effort and time to get this product up and
running and out very fast. That means they 3-6 months to recoup their
investment. It is a proven fact that if you price low ($15-25) you
will get 40-60% of your base to sign on. If you price high, you will
get 10-20% of your base to sign on. Pricing high almost guarantees
that you will recoup your investment, where pricing low doesn't.
I wish I could afford this, but I can't. i respect the business sense
and needs of our developers. hey, this is exactly what apple does
this is there business model! so don't cry too much you are ALL APPLE
USERS!
Ben Liong
the sync that kept me away from paying. I'm not one for crying wolf
about privacy issues, but if they have another jump in usage and ran
out of bandwidth, wouldn't my paid for service be interrupted /
affected? Given that I'm already depending on Google's servers to be
up, but adding another layer into the chain won't help.
Another issue: I have my ibook on all the time, and spanning sync
every hour. I'd noticed that whenever you have an update,
(especially recent ones, I'm guessing that you're calling those
mandatory updates), spanning sync would simply give me an error
dialog box, telling me that the sync didn't work out. I had to go
into the preference page to find that I have to update the software.
What's that all about?
As far as respecting their business decision goes, I think these
views are valuable to them as a company. They charged $65 for the
app, people reacted negatively, and perhaps they can learn a thing or
two and work some other deal out to gain more customers. People
posting here on their views aren't disrespectful, they are merely
annoyed. ;)
--Ben.
joelsanda
Seven cents a day to have my wife's and kid's calendar synchronized
with my personal, work and Colorado Rockies' calendars? The real cost
to me, measured in ever changing calendars, is less an two cents a day
for these five calendars synchronized and available online, on our
macs, and on the iPods.
That's a no brainer - if I encounter few problems after the trial is
up I'll subscribe.
IMHO value is getting skewed because of the proliferation of 'free'
things on the Internet. Not sure how else one could explain the sheer
number of posts where it takes folks 500 - 600 words to complain about
the price of something they don't have to buy...
- Joel
On Mar 13, 10:47 am, "roger...@gmail.com" <roger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charlie,
>
> You can try to justify it all you want -- and saying sales goals were
> passed doesn't mean jack when we don't know what they are -- but the
> vast majority of people are going to think this is too expensive. On
> the TUAW story about this, for example, there are 22 comments...every
> single comment, 100% of them, opines that the price is too high. As
> one observed, it's half the cost of the OS X operating system just for
> a syncing application, and one that still isn't perfect at that. I was
> part of the beta program, and while I think it's a very nice app I
> will never pay those prices for it. I was hoping for $20, maybe $30 at
> the absolute most, which is about on target with what a lot of people
> were expecting. $65 is crazy.
>
> I too am a developer, and we sometimes grapple with pricing. We want
> to make our applications available to as many people as possible but
> still be compensated fairly. There will always be people that feel
> you're charging too much, but they're usually a manageable minority.
> In this case, I think even you have to admit that this is not a
> minority -- a huge percentage of the people that would like to have
> Spanning Sync think it is overpriced. And you can't argue with that.
> What you can argue with is what kind of sales volume increase you
> would have compared to your current numbers if you just sold SS
> outright for a fair price in the $20s. Given the number of people who
> want the app but hate your current pricing, I bet it would at least
> triple your sales, which would compensate for the drop in price. Then,
> more people would have Spanning Sync -- and that's that many more
> people that could tell their friends and in turn generate even more
> customers for you. In the long run, a lower price will make your app
> much more prevalent in the market. Starting with a high price,
> although it will initially get you more revenue, turns a large number
> of people off. As it is, you're probably limiting your numbers even
> more than you realize and reducing this to a niche app (even more so
> than it already was) for the people who are really willing to cough up
> $25/year (a lot of us hate subscriptions -- we already don't "own"
> enough of what we use) or $65 for a single-use syncing application
> (very few, I guarantee you). I think you people got greedy for quick
> money and didn't think about the long term implications.
>
> I know, you're going to tell me you think it's fair...fine, but with
> all due respect your opinion of the price doesn't matter -- the rest
> of the market is who you really have to convince if you want this
> thing to really take off. And I don't see that happening with this
> pricing structure.
>
> As a developer and as someone who wants Spanning Sync, I urge you to
> reconsider the pricing. You said you think the price is affordable by
> just about anyone. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. I could afford it,
> but I'm not going to buy it because strongly disagree with it. Add
> people like me on top of people who really can't afford it -- a lot of
> potential users are probably young people who don't have a lot of
> money -- and you're losing a lot of customers.
>
> Even if you rebuff all this and still have yourself convinced that you
> don't need to change your pricing, you might have to reconsider as
> competitors come out with what will surely be cheaper options.
>
> Best of luck to you and your team.
>
> Matthew
Enrique Rodríguez
I think that 25$ is a very good price to this aplication. Sorry for my poor english.
Bye all.
--
Enrique Rodriguez Vallejo
http://ervdesign.net | ad...@ervdesign.net
Tlfno: 667 237 770
Ben Liong
It's interesting you bring this up. There aren't that many free
software available on Mac OS X vs say on Linux, and I believe mac
users are used to pay for software that works. If you take a look at
all the posts, most of them aren't saying they want it for free.
They'd rather have a lower one-time fee.
Let's take the example of Missing sync series of software, which
pretty much does for devices what Spanning Sync intends to do Google
Calendar. A lot of people use it, pay for it, and never complained
because they have a one-time fee of $39.95. No subscription model.
We get to use it for the lifetime of our device, even if they [knock
on wood] go out of business. Here to get sort of the same deal, it's
$65, and providing them with my personal data, and worry about them
maintaining their servers right. All that for $15 extra.
Can someone from SS explain to us why they'd decided to have
everything go through their server? You're not obligated, but I'd
really like to know.
--Ben.
Taz
of this little gem, but not at its current price. Perhaps the next
rev of iCal will have similar capabilities (yeah, I doubt it too).
roge...@gmail.com
they want you to send your login information through their servers,
I'd just like to let everyone know that the upcoming gSync (currently
in beta -- http://www.macness.com/blog/) works very well. It has not
created a ton of copies of certain events, like Spanning Sync did, it
will only cost $20 (one-time fee) when released next month, it works
perfectly with Google Apps for Your Domain, and it DOESN'T SEND YOUR
GOOGLE CREDENTIALS TO THE DEVELOPER'S SERVERS. The one major thing the
current beta is lacking is an auto-sync on a specified interval
(currently you have to initiate a sync manually), but the developer's
blog says that's coming next.
*bernie#
So, the news is out in the swedish press, too.
And just like in the US, the users (that tried Spanning Sync) all say
the same, 25 USD for a service, too much! 65 USD.. well it's over the
top.
I just wonder how long this will work for the authors of Spanning
Sync. I don't think this will last.. it's just like the MACPLAXO
software/service.. a good idea, that was wasted.
airphloo
Sync as affordable as possible to the greatest number of people.." If
that were true the price would be lower. No, you have tried to make
money. I don't blame you.
I don't fault you for charging the most that you can. If you are in it
from an economic perspective, then your goal should be to maximize
profits. As the only real viable solution at this point, you have
monopolist power. This means you want to charge where marginal revenue
equals marginal cost. You have perceived an inelastic demand and thus
you can have fewer customers and still make more profit because you
are able charge monopolist prices. This is Econ 101.
What most of is are complaining about is that we are used to services
like this being done for free - often by open source projects. In
fact, google calendar and iCal are both free products (more or less).
On Mar 14, 6:40 am, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Airphloo,
>
> I think you've misunderstood something. We've certainly don't "plan
> charge more because of the passion of Mac users". In fact, we've tried
> to make Spanning Sync as affordable as possible to the greatest number
> of people.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie
mike...@gmail.com
but i think they are taking advantage of the situation. not a very
smart move as i think they are inviting competitors and losing
potential loyal beta testers.
On Mar 13, 9:03 pm, "airphloo" <p...@morphi.us> wrote:
> Everyone just hold on. You've lived without spanning sync for this
> long, you can go for a while yet. These guys are taking advantage of
> their monopolist position and have even stated that they plan to
> charge more because of the passion of Mac users (perceived inelastic
> demand). These guys need to make a living but don't overpay just
> because you are impatient.
>
JHN
more angry. I opted for the $25 scheme b/c i figure that way I can
see if this thing will actually work. Well, it now is crashing my
Entourage. I'm not sure you guys know what you are doing. It was
working beter forme in beta-12. I'm not sure you guys are really
solving problems. I really believed in your product, but I have now
spent money (expensive money - thank god i didn't buy the $65 option)
for software that is so unstable I can't count on it. Everytime i
have installed a new version, I have ended up with new problems. If
you wnat to charge such a premium fo rthis product, I really epect
much more service and much more stability. This is still betaware no
matter how you slice it.
The very early Beta verison of gSync works much better - go figure!
On Mar 13, 8:38 pm, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JHN,
>
> We're certainly sorry to lose you as a prospective customer, but value
> is in the eye of the buyer and if the value you perceive isn't greater
> than the cost, you've made the right decision. For the record, we
> believe we've solved the errant email issue with the total rewrite of
> the attendee support that we did for b16.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie
>
> On Mar 13, 7:24 pm, "JHN" <jhniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I hate to have to join this crowd. I loved this app very much. But I
> > had numerous problems early on with google sending out notifications
> > for synced entries. Plus, I know a number of my employess (including
> > me) who all wanted to be able to use this to sync their entourage
> > calendars with iCal and then with Google. But many of us have posted
> > here, we've forwarded emails, and created error reports, but have
> > never actually heard word one of a fix. We've heard lots of "It is
> > our top priority". But no actual results. So am I going to pay $65
> > for a buggy application with no fix in sight? No.
>
> > Plus, please don't treat all your loyal beta testers like they are
> > idiots. You say that the cost is $25. But it's not - after two or
> > three years (which as long as this stays a good app is not
> > unreasonable for people to own it for) this is a $75 or a $100 app.
> > That is what i think people are responding to. It seems like it
> > should be more in the $35 range for such simple application. I have
> > bought far larger, more complex, and more refined applications for
> > less than $65
>
> > Hate to have to sign off,
> >JHN
adriand
like this to manage my mobile (but still poor) student lifestyle.
However, SS does not provide "ability to seamlessly connect Mac OS X
to Google Apps". It offers a way to sync ONE feature of the OS to ONE
of Google's Apps... please don't claim more than you offer (and charge
for it). When you do offer a complete syncing suite between OSX and
Google, then you can reasonably charge as much as an iLife program.
Hell, Apple themselves make a syncing program that does more and its
FREE (although they dont sync to google).
SnapzPro and SubEthaEdit are very polished apps with a few bugs ,while
SS is still somewhat unstable (as it can destroy your calendars).
They also have MANY more features than syncing the same filetypes
between two APIs. If you want to compare applications/costs, Audio
Hijack Pro costs only $32, and it can record/redirect audio between
almost ANY application on a mac. There are also thousands of
shareware apps that have hundreds of useful (and difficult to
implement) features that cost only a few bucks (maybe even 10 or 15).
Why not provide a limited, but free version, to hook us into the
application? For example, only allow 2-3 calendars to sync for free,
up to 5 or so $10 a year. Some of us don't need that many calendars,
we just want the convenience your app offers, but aren't willing to
commit that much money to something that is new and relatively
untested.
Unfortunately, once my trial expires, I will be without this great app
simply because of the bean-counters... such a tragic tale.
On Mar 13, 12:11 pm, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Buster99,
>
> Thanks to you and everyone else for the posts. Like I said in the
> announcement, Mac users are passionate--which rocks.
>
> Let me first say the price for the service is $25/year. We think
> that's not only fair, but also affordable by just about anyone. A
> small number of very vocal users objected early on to subscription-
> based pricing, so we added a one-time payment option for them.
>
> Our goal is to offer a valuable service at a fair price. Given the
> number of people using Spanning Sync, I think we're delivering value.
> But of course, putting a dollar amount on that value is something each
> person has to do for himself. We think $25 is a great deal for the
> ability to seamlessly connect Mac OS X to Google Apps, but if you
> don't that's certainly up to you. To put it in perspective, I paid $69
> for SnapzPro and $35 for SubEthaEdit, both of which I use every day.
> Sure, I would have preferred to pay less, but they're both a vital
> part of my daily routine and I decided that the prices their
> developers had set were worth it to me.
>
> I should also thank all the people who have already bought Spanning
> Sync subscriptions this morning. We passed our first-day sales goal
> within 45 minutes of posting the announcement. We strongly value our
> customers and appreciate the value they've assigned to our work.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie
>
> On Mar 13, 10:58 am, "Buster99" <dko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Charlie, I hope you will listen to the folks who helped beta test this
> > app. You have done a great job of developing SS, and you have been
> > responsive to bugs and input. I don't think I am alone when I say
> > that this is not about just whining 'cause now we have to pay for
> > something that used to be free. I would happily send you $15 or even
> > $20 today and be proud that I was an early user of this app. But $65
> > just seems short-sighted, like you are trying to wring as much money
> > from your users as you can get away with, instead of finding a
> > sustainable price for a great little app. Thanks for reading.
chilly
Yes this is a fairly expensive product, seeing as missing sync is
$40, but as airphloo pointed out its the only game in town. Is it
perfect? No. Does it get the job done? Yes. What is my other option?
Use outlook in parallels instead? Thank you, no. When an alternative
comes out that is a better value for the money, then I will probably
switch, just as I have switch ISPs over the years (Remember $12.50/
Hour at Compuserve?)
Shane
intermediate servers and doesn't cost the earth. One that has a one-
off charge of $20.
That product is gSync from http://www.macness.com - it's current in
release candidate stage and is working brilliantly.
Regards,
Shane.