I just saw the developers have set pricing for SS - $25 per year, or $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.
Hear, hear. I don't have any problem paying for software I think is 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.
Yeah that is way to much for an app that is really not bug free enough 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.
Add me to the list of beta tester who is ditching this app. Those 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>
I guess the good news is that this pricing will leave a lot of room for a competitor like gSync to work out the bugs and still charge a reasonable price. Has anyone tried gSync yet?
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.
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.
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.
$25 is affordable to most of us, but that's not really what we are 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:
> 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.
On Mar 13, 12:11 pm, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
The simple fact is that you'll likely make more money selling at $20 a 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.
On Mar 13, 8:11 am, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I've been buying shareware for years and pay the developers each time 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.
> 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.
I'll be the lone voice of support here. (Without being critical of 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.
> > 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.
$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
On Mar 13, 2:56 pm, "Buster99" <dko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just saw the developers have set pricing for SS - $25 per year, or > $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.
> I'll be the lone voice of support here. (Without being critical of > 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.
It's funny because I just installed the beta yesterday for the first 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!
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
On Mar 13, 3:31 pm, "fvalletu...@gmail.com" <fvalletu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's funny because I just installed the beta yesterday for the first > 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!
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
I have to join the ranks that say I don't think the pricing is right. 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.
On Mar 13, 9:36 pm, "cwood" <charlie.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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 > $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.
