I have wanted to write a post for some time complaining both about user expectations for free or very low priced apps\/services and provider pricing models. I see these two issues as inter-related so please bear with my effort to argue for a connection between these issues.<\/p>\n
The immediate stimulus for this post was a recent Miguel Guhlin comment<\/a> lamenting the loss of Pastoch.io <\/a>as a free way to offer a web site based in Evernote. Postachio discontinued the free service and moved to a paid service that would cost Guhlin $90 annually in addition to the cost of a Pro Evernote account.<\/p>\n I have written about a similar\u00a0problem on several occasions (recently concerning Posts<\/a>).<\/p>\n The challenge here is to encourage both users and providers to make adjustments<\/p>\n Users expect too much without appreciating the demands of creating quality resources.\u00a0Users expect free without giving thought to why the app\/service provider would have developed the necessary skills and made the considerable effort to make the app\/service available. This \u201creason\u201d might be called the business plan.\u00a0If no business plan is visible as a user I would hesitate to invest much in the service.<\/p>\n Free does not have to mean that no plan exists, but it is important to consider what the future might hold.\u00a0Perhaps the developers hope to produce a popular service and be acquired. If successful, there is then the concern that the company acquiring the product may discontinue what the user has come to depend on (.e.g., LaLa<\/a>). Perhaps the developers benefit from a related income stream and do not need to make money on the free service (e.g., many Google services, ed presenters who support themselves through speaking\/consulting fees, but offer online tutorials at no cost). Perhaps the developers intend to charge at a later point (the Guhlin experience). If this happens without an indication free\u00a0was not the long term intent I would regard this as naive or unethical (I do not have the background to evaluate the Guhlin case). I do think developers can be naive. I even distrust products that would seem to have \u201cbackend costs\u201d and are free or are sold at a very low price. Once the market for a free or $1 product is saturated, how will the developers continue to cover their own costs? This final issue is the one that keeps biting me. Even services I have paid for have failed on me.<\/p>\n My second \u201cissue\u201d concerns the pricing model some companies offer. My needs frequently seem to fall between the base price (sometimes free and sometimes a few dollars) and the next step up on the price\/services model. As an example, Guhlin suggested that he was going to respond to his plight be using Zapier<\/a> – a flexible system for integrating applications\/services (as a simple example detecting a change in one service and updating data in a second service). This service interested me so I investigated the service. While quite powerful, the service makes a good example of the situation I have just described. There is a free version that allows a limited number of tasks\/actions to be taken (probably sufficient for Guhlin\u2019s project and most I would consider). The next step on the pricing structure is $240 per year (and it moves up from here).<\/p>\n My sweet spot as a personal user is likely in the <$25 range for annual services and maybe $10 for an app. In some cases I might expect to pay both (the initial purchase and then an on-going payment to support backend requirements).<\/p>\n From my perspectives, these two issues are inter-related. More users should be involved in paying for services they use and providers should be offer reasonable rates suited to the actual levels of benefits users receive.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n