Comment by eropple | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eropple | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

To be honest, almost none of the people who pirated your App would've bought it in the first place, so it's not as if there's lost revenue, you wouldn't have got it in the first place.

Common pirate argument #1. Prove it. Surely this is a falsifiable claim; do you have sources to back it up?

The people who pirate your app, act as advertisers, others see them playing the game, and then some people go any buy the game legitimately.

Common pirate statement #2. Prove it. Surely this is a falsifiable claim; do you have sources to back it up?

Also, the fact that people are pirating your app in the first place means is obviously very good and you should be proud of that.

Bad software is pirated just as good software is. This isn't meaningfully indicative of anything. And if it is good software (I'm not in a position to judge, it doesn't appear to be a game I'd be interested in), then I can very much see it being difficult to "feel good about it" when the compensation that they're due is not being paid them.

.

These arguments are silly and demeaning to people who actually create things. They excuse bad behavior. Some people, I'm sure, pirate because they can't afford things (though how did they get an iOS device?). Others--and intuitively I think this is a large portion, but I'm at least honest enough to admit that I can't prove it--just want things for free.

>Some people, I'm sure, pirate because they can't afford things (though how did they get an iOS device?).

I bought a new smartphone last week. I can afford to, but it does not obligate me to piss away money on apps (I don't pirate them either). I can not emphasize how significantly higher the cost:value ratio of my phone and service is compared to that of some bullshit apps. How does that saying go, "linux is only free if your time is worthless"?, well, dicking around with apps on your phone is only cheap if your time is worthless.

If someone can manage to afford an iphone, it can simultaneously be a good decision and worth it for them and to still have a long way to go before their next most intelligent purchase is pricy glitter for their phone.

>though how did they get an iOS device?

This is, incidentally, kind of a silly question. It's like assuming that owning a car means you can afford to eat a $20 restaurant meal every night. Sure, cars cost way more than food, but that's not the point.

An LG VX8300 or whatever is also "a car". An iPhone is a midrange Acura or something--not the most expensive car out there, but if you can buy one, you can afford the seat covers (which is a tortured analogy to apps, but work with me here).

> It's like assuming that owning a Ferrari means you can afford to eat at a $20 restaurant meal every night.

Fixed that for you. iPhones are a luxury item. Cellphones are arguably necessary, but nobody's forcing you to drop $400 on a smartphone when there are perfectly free (subsidized) feature phones on every single carrier.

So yeah, I agree with the assumption that iPhone users have a little extra cash to burn.

Edit: Ok, maybe Ferrari wasn't quite a fair comparison, but certainly a car that's a little more than just getting from point A to point B.

...did you just equate an iPhone with a Ferrari, or am I missing some fundamental point of comparison here?

iPhones and other Apple products are not very expensive. They're not the cheapest products on the market, but that isn't really the point; Homo economicus ( http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2095 ) might consider it a luxury item, but that just doesn't describe the purchasing decisions and ethos of the vast majority of today's consumers.

Consequently, it's kind of a ridiculous assumption.

A Ferrari is certainly not a fair comparison, but if you can afford an iPhone, you can afford a $0.99 application if you actually want it.

And if you can't? Do without. Don't pirate it. This is really not a hard concept: give those who create what you enjoy their due, or do without.

People spend money in different ways when you're looking at a once-every-few-years purchase as opposed to an everyday purchase. Someone's perception of whether they can afford an application vs a phone is not evaluated solely on price.

This isn't about morals, it's about economics. I'm not saying you should pirate things you can't afford, I'm saying that buying an iPhone is not a guarantee of being well-off, even absent the 'gift' factor.

But an app isn't an everyday purchase either. An iPhone, with the required data plan, is an everyday purchase. The hardware is more expensive once, and the plan is more expensive every month. Apps are purchased once.

>But an app isn't an everyday purchase either.

Not for you, not for me; can you say that for everyone?

Data plans are irrelevant. I could well point out car insurance in the ancestor analogy.

EDIT: Allow me to clarify. A phone is a decision made once. The data plan, the price of the phone, these are all taken into account at the time the purchasing decision is made. Applications are a long chain of decisions which are each approached individually.

An iPhone, with the required data plan, is an everyday purchase.

You need to rethink and reword this.

I said what I meant. When you buy an iPhone, not only are you paying for the hardware, you're committing to a monthly fee. A $0.99 app is not even a day of cell service, let alone a 2 year phone contract.

An every day purchase is a purchase that someone could (be reasonably expected to) make most days. Noone purchases an iPhone for themselves several times a week. Hence an iPhone is not an every day purchase.

You are getting confused because you believe that paying for a service every day make it an every day purchase. You only purchase an iPhone once (although you will possibly buy another iPhone a year or two later.)

Paying off a home loan over a few decades doesn't make a house an everyday purchase. And paying for an iPhone over a couple of years (or signing any two-year contract) doesn't make that an everyday purchase either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com