Hacker News Reader

Comment by crimsonalucard | Hacker News Reader

No it's not. "Pay what you want" is the most prominent statement on the whole page. The one dollar minimum for content is obscure.

edit: why do people vote me down when what I say is true? I'm sorry but I'm not willing to pay for tutorials on open source applications that I can otherwise legally get for free. Humble Bundle isn't even a non-profit corporation. They are a private for-profit corporation where profit is the bottom line and donations to charity are more of a marketing gimmick used to reach that bottom line. Humble Bundle is a highly, highly profitable middle man operation that banks on the altruism of people.

View on HN

I didn't down vote you, but was tempted, so I'll explain.

Yes, you are stating a true fact. However, I'm pretty sure that the vast number of people who see these things do not consider the distinction you draw vastly more deceptive than, well, any other advertising out there, and much less so than most. Compare with, say, Comcast, and this is a model of clarity.

An additional reason is that it is somewhat derailing to rant about what many would think to be trivial quibbles about advertising copy in the middle of what is otherwise a discussion about the usefulness of the books, ORA, etc.

Nothing was derailed, I think my comment was the first.

Additionally, I believe it is more deceptive then your traditional advertisement. How much "Pay what you want" deals are out there? It is a very unique marketing strategy.

I didn't down vote you, but it seems like you're being intentionally literal to the point of being a bit obtuse.

Technically you are correct, I understand that. The majority of people can look past the technicality but you, for some reason, won't.

It's like complaining about an all you can eat restaurant being falsely named because technically, I can eat more at home. Technically, they made a false claim, it's really only all I can eat in one visit, but nobody would be so petty as to complain about that. Would they?

Otherwise known as; a lack of common sense/understanding

Woah there, did you just say I lack common sense? Is that a personal attack? We all know everyone on HN loves personal attacks.

In a buffet common sense reigns because everybody knows what a buffet is: an all you can eat deal in a single meal. Everyone knows this because buffets are numerous and have existed long before you or I have existed.

A humble bundle is not common sense. There is only one company currently doing this and therefore there is no intrinsic knowledge of the nature of what I am purchasing, in fact the humble bundle was invented within the last decade meaning most of you existed before humble bundle existed. There is nothing "obvious" about this.

You cannot equate this to a buffet. It's a ludicrous analogy similar to equating linux books to atomic bombs because both involve software of some sort. Honestly how many of you knew there was a one dollar minimum without reading about it? Or did you even know about the "free tier" without reading about it? Nothing on that page is obvious.

I must admit. I am stumped. I feel like I'm engaged in a debate to which I do not understand the rules.

I simply do not understand the motivation behind your arguments. I recognize that you are arguing, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why. You are talking about something that is clearly on the screen. There are 3 distinct blocks of books. They have a dollar value shown above them.

I would say that requires a bit of common sense, or perhaps hovering over the text "Pay what you want" and reading for a second. In fact, in order to get to the custom amount input box at the bottom of the screen, I count no less than 3 times you had to ignore the stipulation that the price was $1 for that tier of books.

Pay what you want is not a lie. It has a stipulation.

There is a german word for your behaviour.

i-Tüpferl-Reiter http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/i_Tuepferl_Reiter

Which roughly translates to: The need to make something better even if it is already as good as it gets

I never mentioned such a need. What I mentioned was deception conducted by the company. Perhaps it is just misguided perception. People can't take a statement at face value, they must always make an assumption.

It may be imprecise, but "deceptive" is a bit harsh.

Deceptive is a bit harsh, but is it not the truth? One can be deceptive by being imprecise.

So let's cut to the chase: is that what they're doing here?

They are being imprecise by your own admission. Yes.

One can be deceptive by being imprecise

The question is whether this imprecision qualifies as deception.

The question implies certain meanings not explicitly stated. As does the answer.

edit: hey buddy, thanks for voting me down. Why the hell should I answer you when it's all I get. I have nothing left to say to you other than you are unable to respect differing opinions.

I wouldn't say it is. Look at the Games or Mobile sections, and it says "Pay what you want" for the cheapest tier. At those tiers, you can pay $0.01 and have them make a loss to provide the content, if you're OK with doing that. It's very clear at the top of every section exactly how much you have to pay to unlock each tier of content.

The books don't have a $0.01 tier. When you look at the page, the first line of content that isn't a headline makes it clear that it's a $1 minimum. When you hover over the "Pay what you want" text, it clarifies that, on this page, it's "Name your price of $1 or more." When you attempt to pay less than $1, it displays a warning that you won't get any content if you pay less than $1. The fact that you're here moaning about it makes it clear that you understand that it's a $1 minimum. So where's the deception?

The $1 minimum is above the particular tier. Along with the marking for the $8 and $15 tiers.

And when you enter in the amount you want to pay, they tell you exactly what you will (or will not) get.

Even less prominent is the "free" tier. You'll get one book for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com