Prometheus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 9,472
You guys are starting to sound like you should be contributing to Clients From Hell, now. :lol:
Last edited by a moderator:
Introduction (new member "hmc")
- Thread starter hmc
- Start date
Christoph.Krn
Advanced Member
Personally I think that some people do understand but are simply not easily bothered by most things, but most people simply think they are intelligent and thus have never questioned whether what they believe to be true is actually true.
Some of those human beings who believe that humanity is able to control radioactivity fail to see that the ability to monitor, observe and "understand" radioactivity is not equal to having control over radioactivity. In the same way, some of those customers who state to have understood because they genuinely believe to have understood, have not actually understood. One possible solution to this (that only applies to some situations) could be to use a "forcing function" (a term from the world of usability). For instance, you can use the curiosity that every human being has and ask the customer an interesting question, and make that question so that whoever thinks about will be likely to "understand". For example, tell the customer that she is allowed to propose the price she has to pay, and if it is a fair price then you will accept it (this is bold, I know). The customer will be likely to either begin to wonder how the software was created and attempt to negotiate a price that is fair for both of you, or simply ask you to dictate the price, and if the latter is the case then you can explain the pricing and it is likely that the customer will actually think about it. That customer will then also likely be able to make a more educated decision the next time he buys a software (unless he will no longer be bothered, that is).
Again, this is just for some specific situations that may not be equal to yours, but it shows that if you believe that the situation is not good because the customer is doing something idiotic, then you will likely not be able to change the customer, but just like the customer has not yet understood your reasoning, you might not yet have understood the situation and that there is one parameter that you are (nearly) always in control of, which is your own behavior that you can hack to make the situation better.
Human beings are herd creatures and thus are concerned about the wellbeing of the group, but their superior, "rational" intellect makes them become "smarter than others" (quite funny indeed).
Disclaimer: I'm not a marketing guy. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners, and, in a surprising twist, so is everything else. Does this still fit the thread or should the discussion be split off? It is in a way related to what was written in the introduction...
Last edited by a moderator:
hmc
Active Member
So true.
What you write reminds me of what a colleague recently told me:
His wife was selling old stuff on a flea market. And while all others on the flea marked had labels on their items, denoting the price, she asked every interested person to tell what (s)he likes to pay for the item of interest.
The other sellers on the flea market were confronted with heavy discussions about very low prices, they even had to fight for the low prices on their labels.
But she not only got suggested much higher prices by the people interested in their items. SHe only needed to accept those prices and didn't even hae to negotiate a lot.
--> Both parties were happier than with pre-determined prices.
Daniel
What you write reminds me of what a colleague recently told me:
His wife was selling old stuff on a flea market. And while all others on the flea marked had labels on their items, denoting the price, she asked every interested person to tell what (s)he likes to pay for the item of interest.
The other sellers on the flea market were confronted with heavy discussions about very low prices, they even had to fight for the low prices on their labels.
But she not only got suggested much higher prices by the people interested in their items. SHe only needed to accept those prices and didn't even hae to negotiate a lot.
--> Both parties were happier than with pre-determined prices.
Daniel
Well, there's still two sides to this. For example even if I fully understand why someone asks a certain price for a software package (any kind of product actually), and even if I agree that from an objective point of view this price is absolutely justified (or even cheap), it still doesn't mean that I agree it is worth for me to spend this kind of money on it. And this of course depends on how often I would use it, how useful it would be for me in then, and also if there is a cheaper or even free alternative that might do the job.
I have no problem with paying for things if I think they are worth it for me though. In that case I also rather pay a bit more and go for the quality product, and not the cheap alternative. I even like to go to a store and buy it there if they give me a good service, knowing I could get it much cheaper on the net ...
I am still very picky about where I spend my money, so I guess sometimes I look like the hated cheapskate "I can get this for free if I wanted to"-guy (although I would just silently walk away and would never start arguing about this with the salesman/developer) ... but some other time I'll be the guy who doesn't mind spending €100 more for quality and service.
I have no problem with paying for things if I think they are worth it for me though. In that case I also rather pay a bit more and go for the quality product, and not the cheap alternative. I even like to go to a store and buy it there if they give me a good service, knowing I could get it much cheaper on the net ...
I am still very picky about where I spend my money, so I guess sometimes I look like the hated cheapskate "I can get this for free if I wanted to"-guy (although I would just silently walk away and would never start arguing about this with the salesman/developer) ... but some other time I'll be the guy who doesn't mind spending €100 more for quality and service.
hmc
Active Member
Sure!
A price set by the seller, only based on the efforts, costs and the amount of pieces the seller can sell, does not take into account how much the product may be worth to the buyer.
But with software licenses, this is different:
The amount of sellable units is virtually unlimited. So the amount of available (manufactured) units is not relevant for the price.
Instead, you can (probably should) take into account how much money the unit, means: license, is worth to the buyer.
But even here:
It doesn't make the impression that you admire your own "app" and think it's high quality, if you think it's only worth 79 cents to the buyer.
If I see an "app" for 79 cents, and one for 5 Euro, and both claim to do the same, I trust the cheaper one less.
Of course this is not a guarantee that the more expensive one really is more capable, but at least there is this feeling, and also that feeling counts.
What I strongly dislike about this "app" business is that there is mostly no way to try an app before you buy it (so this makes the feeling count even more).
Sure, you only pay 79 cent, so why try? Spend these 79 cents, download and try the app. If it's not good, you have only tossed 79 cents, so what?
If you are looking for an app which suites your needs, and have the coice between 10 different apps, which cost 1 Euro in average, spend 10 Euro, choose the best one and delete the others.
No!
I would rather have trial versions of programs, which costs 10 Euro each, try these and then spend 10 Euro for that one, which is best.
That way, the programmer of the best program has earned 10 Euro for the good work, and the other programmers have a motivation to improve their programs to strengthen the competition. If programmers of bad apps earn the same as programmers of good apps, why should I as an app programmer care about good quality of my apps?
Somehow, the "app" business reminds me of the planned economy of the GDR or other communistic countries.
Sure, Apple and the like try to overcome this problem by voting systems. But why the heck should I rely on votings by other users (which may have totally different views on software quality), if I could - with the other model involving trial versions - do the real tests: Compare the capability of the software with MY OWN requirements.
It wouldn't cost more money in the end. It only costs a bit more time, but in the end I am more satisfied.
Daniel
A price set by the seller, only based on the efforts, costs and the amount of pieces the seller can sell, does not take into account how much the product may be worth to the buyer.
But with software licenses, this is different:
The amount of sellable units is virtually unlimited. So the amount of available (manufactured) units is not relevant for the price.
Instead, you can (probably should) take into account how much money the unit, means: license, is worth to the buyer.
But even here:
It doesn't make the impression that you admire your own "app" and think it's high quality, if you think it's only worth 79 cents to the buyer.
If I see an "app" for 79 cents, and one for 5 Euro, and both claim to do the same, I trust the cheaper one less.
Of course this is not a guarantee that the more expensive one really is more capable, but at least there is this feeling, and also that feeling counts.
What I strongly dislike about this "app" business is that there is mostly no way to try an app before you buy it (so this makes the feeling count even more).
Sure, you only pay 79 cent, so why try? Spend these 79 cents, download and try the app. If it's not good, you have only tossed 79 cents, so what?
If you are looking for an app which suites your needs, and have the coice between 10 different apps, which cost 1 Euro in average, spend 10 Euro, choose the best one and delete the others.
No!
I would rather have trial versions of programs, which costs 10 Euro each, try these and then spend 10 Euro for that one, which is best.
That way, the programmer of the best program has earned 10 Euro for the good work, and the other programmers have a motivation to improve their programs to strengthen the competition. If programmers of bad apps earn the same as programmers of good apps, why should I as an app programmer care about good quality of my apps?
Somehow, the "app" business reminds me of the planned economy of the GDR or other communistic countries.
Sure, Apple and the like try to overcome this problem by voting systems. But why the heck should I rely on votings by other users (which may have totally different views on software quality), if I could - with the other model involving trial versions - do the real tests: Compare the capability of the software with MY OWN requirements.
It wouldn't cost more money in the end. It only costs a bit more time, but in the end I am more satisfied.
Daniel
Last edited by a moderator:
I fully agree! I hate having to buy something without knowing if i really does what I want it to do ...
Also I should add that I never bought an "app" ... I do have a smart phone, but only because I won it ... and I only use it as a phone. One of the reasons I ordered a Pandora was that I am not willing to spend a ridiculous amount of money for small peices of software that hopefully do what I want in a limited way on a limited piece of hardware. (I better stop here, otherwise this will end in a rant against smartphones
)
Christoph.Krn
Advanced Member
A developer who wants his customer to understand fair prices should also understand that the customer likes a fair offering. That developer should keep the heck out of the potential customer's desires. If the software is good enough, then the customer will buy it, and if the customer doesn't, then the developer has failed and should recycle his software (there's more than one way to make something better and more useful).
The same is true for at least many other products.
Last edited by a moderator:
Link
ithic.com
I just got the Trailer Park Boys reference with this... Conky that is.
Bubbles is awesome!
Bubbles is awesome!
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
