Why is Tweetbot for Mac $20?
tapbots.com
tapbots.com
Twitter is putting these guys out of business, and it's completely in their (Twitter's) right to do so. Playing the blame game may feel good but it won't solve anything; the hard work these guys put in is likely going to quickly stop being a viable source of revenue, and there's nothing they can do about it. I can't think of anything to say about it other than it's a real damned shame.
Unless Twitter, and other widely adopted platform providers, find a balance between corporate interests and supporting users interacting with their services in the ways that they prefer to do so, we will see more and more people obtaining Tweet-bots and Friend-adders, from illegitimate sources which bypass API's altogether.
Even if Tweetbot states something like "Twitter has limited the number of clients we can sell" they'll still think Tweetbot is stupid. But most of them won't think "I wonder if there is a way around this." And then head to some warez type solution.
Instead they'll look and see if there is an alternative, or more likely, just stick with Twitter's website.
I just don't buy the "This will drive people to pirated software" argument.
There is a subtle distinction here.
I'm addressing the underground marketplaces where Tweetbot-like applications already flourish. These apps, quite often, don't use any API at all but instead rely on hidden browser windows and net.webclient interfaces to simulate browser actions.
They'll just use the next most popular Twitter client for iOS, which is likely free or perhaps a buck or two.
Well, that's my dream. tent.io is nice, but it's not going to replace Twitter anytime soon, and I actively dislike app.net. But we're past the age when third party clients can be effectively blocked by technical means, and I want to see their return.
Plus, these cat-and-mouse games require a user base that is fairly quick to update; if Twitter blocks one avenue (and they will try desperately to do so if one of these clients gains a decent number of users), an update for the client is likely necessary. I would think the easier way would be for users to get their own API keys and secrets and enter them into the app.
[1]: https://twitter.com/tos, Section 8
Because it's worth that much. I didn't even give it any thought – I just hit the purchase button the moment I read I could.
They shouldn't have written this with the sheepish, question-marked headline. They don't need to apologize or feel bashful, though I get why they would. It's a great desktop app. It costs what it costs. Anyone who doesn't like that is just leaving more tokens for the rest of us.
One explanation: not all users are created equal. It could be that the 20% who use third party clients are more/most engaged. Lassoing them back into the fold could have some strategic benefit.
Even if every single Mac user would pay Twitter a one time fee of $100 to use a third party Twitter client, that would result in just $5 billion.
I think Twitter is betting they can earn more by controlling the experience.
Charge per 10k tokens or something, with the first 100k free. Make each token worth about $0.60 and you could make some serious dough via not just 3rd party clients, but also people trying to mine data, build on top of the platform etc. etc.
I wish there were a way of identifying people like you online and charging more to capture some of that consumer surplus :)
Unless you price it so highly that only one person in the world will pay for it, you're leaving consumer surplus on the table. Clearly that's not a good solution though, since you miss out on all the slightly more price sensitive customers.
No, it's $20 because they decided to price it at $20, and they decided to price it at $20 for the reasons they stated.
The ones that I found more interesting are:
- "The same price as my operating system. Later guys, it’s been fun."
While I understand his/her reasoning I disagree because it's a very deceiving comparison.
- "I love tweetbot, and I know tapbots won’t care, but I can’t afford to buy $20 for something that performs one function, which I can already get on my phone, and the same basic data from other clients and even twitter.com."
I wouldn't go as far to say that it performs just one function but I can understand what (s)he means.
- "The worst thing the App Store did was to devalue software. I write it for a living, I know the time and energy that goes in to building a good piece of software, and asking to be paid for that work is not evil."
- "I’d pay $100 for Tweetbot for Mac. Anyone who whines about $20 has clearly never written a piece of software."
- "Don’t get me wrong, I bought it. I’am a software developer too, so I know how much work you had to put into it. But still, it’s too much. Especially in Poland, where I live. Especially if you compare it to other Twitter clients, or software in MAS in general. Especially, if you consider that the future of the software is not safe (because of Twitter limitations)."
I guess we, developers, are always more understanding when it comes to the amount of effort required to create great software. However, you can apply that same stament to many other professions (shoemakers and shoes, etc)
EDIT: Formatting
When one purchases something, they ought to evaluate the value of a product solely on the utility that they gain from that product and how that compares to the utility and price of similar products. Tweetbot is working against the precedent set by other apps in this regard. It yields near-negligible utility over free alternatives and competes in an ecosystem dominated by free apps. (If anything, it yields less utility over others, because once the token threshold is met, it will in all likelihood become abandon-ware.) Thus the value of Tweetbot— and of software in general— goes down.
The work put in by the developers has no weight in determining the price. The market's tolerance, perception of value, and willingness to pay is the only factor. Even if I spend 10,000 hours making a great latte, it's unreasonable that I charge $1m for it because my competitors are selling a similar product at $4 and the increase in utility of my latte versus theirs is likely not enough to warrant the increase in cost to the consumer. Their logic is flawed and is totally incongruous with the most fundamental concepts of economics. Commerce is a quid pro quo, not a charitable donation.
I don't, however, believe that such a high price is a knock against TapBots. They are permitted to charge whatever they like. You really can't fault them for price-gouging: Everyone loves money. The desire to get more of it is something that is not only reasonable, but is lauded in a capitalist economy. I find it doubtful that many people think ill of TapBots for their pricing. Rather, the issue lies in the fact that their app does relatively little yet has an incredibly inflated and anomalous price that deviates from the norm. The motives are reasonable, but the price isn't.
As for me, I won't be buying TweetBot. It's more money than I can reasonably afford. Even if it weren't, it's price simply outpaces it's value to such an extent as to be unjustifiable.
I wouldn't say is that simple. I think it depends on WHO is buying WHAT. For example, if I'm buying a pillow...yes, I'll buy the cheapest one available. If I were buying a watch, no. I'd be more than happy to pay over $10,000 for a watch (insane ah? if I could just convince the wife...) Why? because a different set of criteria come into play and the utilitarian aspect (telling time) loses importance (heck a $5 Casio can be more accurate sometimes). Things like the engineering behind the construction of the watch, the history of the brand, the materials used, etc, become purchasing decisions factors. The point is that for some it's worth $20 or more because it's either beautiful, stable, etc, or they might just like Tapbot as a company.
>Tweetbot is working against the precedent set by other apps in this regard. It yields near-negligible utility over free alternatives and competes in an ecosystem dominated by free apps. (If anything, it yields less utility over others, because once the token threshold is met, it will in all likelihood become abandon-ware.) Thus the value of Tweetbot— and of software in general— goes down. >The work put in by the developers has no weight in determining the price. The market's tolerance, perception of value, and willingness to pay is the only factor. Even if I spend 10,000 hours making a great latte, it's unreasonable that I charge $1m for it because my competitors are selling a similar product at $4 and the increase in utility of my latte versus theirs is likely not enough to warrant the increase in cost to the consumer. Their logic is flawed and is totally incongruous with the most fundamental concepts of economics. Commerce is a quid pro quo, not a charitable donation.
And yet...I'm confident and I really hope they sell enough copies to make a good profit out of a great product.
>You really can't fault them for price-gouging: Everyone loves money.
I truly disagree with this statement. It's not about greed. Come on, they even took the time to explain to their users why they had charge more than they had initially planned.
>As for me, I won't be buying TweetBot. It's more money than I can reasonably afford. Even if it weren't, it's price simply outpaces it's value to such an extent as to be unjustifiable.
Look, you wrote it more clearly than me: it's about "perception of value". Some users think it's fairly priced, others that it's too high, and some that they could even charge more.
By the way, I won't buy it either...too expensive...for me ;)
The value is not all about how well it does Twitter. Many Mac users will buy it so that they can talk about it with other Mac users. That's part of marginal utility as well. TapBots has won the respect of Mac opinion makers, and that respect is cash in the bank.
In regards to the defense of the price, I don't think the fact that they are resource-constrained changes the endgame: they want to make money. Conceivably, TapBots wants to accrue a large amount of money over the lifetime of TweetBot. This artificial constraint changes their ability to earn money because the number of sales is limited and life of the product is shortened. So, they charge more to compensate for Twitter's absurd policies. That does not change their motives, it just changes their strategy. They're not being coerced by Twitter to sell it for $20. They could sell it for $10 or $15, and could likely make a profit, but it would be substantially less than if they were to sell it for more. It's all in pursuit of money. Like I said, this isn't bad. I admire people who are capable of creating such rabid fans and defenders, and who can get away selling an app at far above the market average.
I guess, all in all, it just bums me out that awesome products (like Tweetbot) could potentially have a great product like this ruined by 1 small decision Twitter makes. And I just don't think I want to waste $20 on that bet (especially when the Twitter site UI/UX isn't THAT bad to use).
/2 cents
I'm really glad we have companies like Tapbots, Panic, etc., pushing against the "race to the bottom" trend with app prices that we've seen lately. Good apps are HARD to do, and there's no reason they shouldn't command a price commensurate with the effort involved.
That's exactly what I'm worried about. It COULD be a year (and in that case, yes, it would be worth it), but no one can guarantee that. It could be tomorrow for all we know. And that is why I say it's a gamble I don't really want to take on a social networking app (no matter how nice the UI/UX is).
It's worth more to me to just use the browser Twitter app (has a few flaws but isn't THAT bad) for free then take a huge risk with $20.
If they stopped supporting it tomorrow, it wouldn't disappear from your device. The earliest it would possibly break would be in the next major OS upgrade.
Y'know, in about a year.
The idea that a measly $20 is too much to pay for months of engineering and design work up to now, let alone going forward, is utterly absurd.
I'd expect it from Joe Random Entitled-Guy, but I'd expect a higher standard from HN, where presumably the sentiment is that devs ought to be able to subsist above the poverty line.
That's not true at all. Twitter could revoke their API access or something that could break it tomorrow. Yes the actual app may still be on my device but nothing says it will actually still be able to work. That is all in Twitter's hands.
> The idea that a measly $20 is too much to pay for months of engineering and design work up to now, let alone going forward, is utterly absurd.
That is their decision to make this bet. If I were to spend years and years making the perfect toaster and I charge $1,000 for it (to pay for the engineering and design work), you're saying it's absurd NOT to buy it? It's actually the opposite. It's absurd to assume that just because someone puts engineering and design into a product, that it automatically makes the product worth X price.
It's never absurd to choose not to buy anything. But your analogy gets in the way of what is absurd. We're not talking about charging $1000 dollars (the same price as a nice laptop, a middling DSLR, or a crappy used car) for a toaster.
We're talking about $20 (the same price as a delivered pizza, a middling steak, and less than two tickets for an hour and a half movie) for a polished piece of software.
What's absurd is asserting that that's too much to ask for the product of months of engineering and design work. You certainly don't have to buy it! It's totally ok if it's not worth $20 of your money, to you.
But asserting that the authors ought to value their work less than a pizza, that they're doing something wrong by asking a not-unreasonable pizza-money price for it, is entitled, race-to-the-bottom mentality crap.
Engineers are expensive, iOS engineers doubly so. This meme that their work is worth less than a candy bar, let alone a pizza, is a toxic devaluation of the worth of every engineer working in the software field
coda: They're currently both the #2 paid app and #2 top-grossing app in the App Store, so the demand is certainly there at $20. Devaluing their work by launching at less would have accomplished nothing but leaving money on the table.
What gets me most about arguments like these is that you are pulling numbers out of thin air. You assert that $.99 is too little for an app, but provide no context nor any evidence to support that. Give me a number that demonstrates the monetary value to the consumer of an hour of development. You can't.
Insofar as there is no absolute value of development time— and, therefore, of apps— the only way to gauge value is based on market precedent. If everyone else is charging $2 for their apps, yeah, $20 is too much.
directly contradicts:
> If everyone else is charging $2 for their apps, yeah, $20 is too much.
Let this sink in: Tweetbot for has been out for less than 24 hours. It is already #2 in sales and #2 in Mac App Store revenue.
The market completely disagrees with your latter statement.
What you're seeing here isn't that $20 is too much given that everyone else is selling at $2.
Rather, what you're seeing is that everyone else, operating under the received "wisdom" that apps are worth less than a cup of coffee, are leaving absolutely staggering amounts of money on the table by being afraid to ignore the nonsense and ask for real value in return for their work.
To be fair, Tweetbot only has to sell 1/10 as many copies as those $2 apps in order to beat them at the sales ranking.
Incidentally, I do think that apps ought to cost less than $4, because that is the precedent that has been set. If Tweetbot would prefer to charge the inordinate sum that they are, that is their choice. But, so long as people are selling great clients for much less or for free, that will be the standard and that will be the point from which I judge value.
I think we can expect third-party clients to be allowed for a while more, maybe even a year or two, but who knows.
That said, I still think the app is worth it.
Right now, I don't see how they will be able to continue to update the app once they hit 100,000 users whilst preventing the app from being purchased by new users via the Mac App Store. In order to offer updates via the MAS, your app needs to be available to sale to new customers.
Tweetbot is currently 2nd in the Top Paid and Top Grossing store charts, behind only OSX Mountain Lion. Those $1.4m will be in the bank in a few days. People didn't balk at the price one bit; I thought about it for a few minutes, and then went f#ck it, it's the only program good enough to make me tolerate Twitter, and devs gotta eat. I suspect for some power user, $50 or even $100 would have been fair game.
What happens to the tokens when people pirate this app? Does it count towards their limit?
Almost definitely.
Yeah. There's no way for Twitter to tell them apart.
If somebody figures out how to trick the registration to get free API tokens on the other hand, that would be really bad for the company.
It does show the limited upside of twitter apps under the new rules(yes, 1.4 million is still a lot of money, but no home run for a company).
Tapbots has >135,000 twitter followers. They had significant exposure from many other sources too, like Daring Fireball which has >400,000 Mac + Twitter using RSS subscribers.
Early adopters are more likely to have multiple twitter accounts as well, so they would have already registered multiple tokens.
Twitter is weird.
Really, now. It's on the level of: PAYING for ELECTRONIC "BOOK" "RENTALS"
Think about that. Royalties, intellectual property, and blah blah blah aside...
They insist on implying that you're "renting" electronic signals. They don't want you to think in terms of paying an ISP for a connection (service), and then the transmission (bandwidth), AND THEN THE CONTENT (the "book") ON TOP OF ALL THAT. You could just KEEP the "book" forever, with virtualized backups if you really wanted to. And can't we just dispose of the "book" euphemisms too? What you're really paying for is a brokered decryption of information. Gee, thanks for brightening up that reality with all the duckspeak, marketing.
It's just bits. Induced magnetic fields on a metal platter. Energized wires in an integrated circuit.
I mean I guess you could take the view that we all "rent" beer, in a certain wry sense. But that's like when inmates rationalize that everyone's in a "prison" somehow, or when prostitutes rationalize that all house-wives are essentially "prostitutes" with a different name.
Seriously. Paying for a Twitter interface?
You can just use the website.
For free.
$20 is like 4 hours of work for someone who're making minimum wage.
"BORROWING" ELECTRONIC "BOOKS" and then "RETURNING" THEM, or else YOU PAY "LATE" FEES.
Someone actually mentioned that idea to me, when we were discussing how the free public library system was imploding in wake of pervasive digital media. I conceded that, yeah, it's kind of sad, but then I just shrugged and changed the subject.
I also find it ironic that the app maker has to ask beta testers to revoke access to free up tokens for others.
That's what twitter's API announcement says. It seems really disrespectful of tapbot to be unwilling to pay twitter anything when they're charging their users $20. If this is the app maker's attitude toward the service they are building their business on top of, i can understand why twitter wants to crack down on their API consumers.
I wonder if they considered a subscription option instead of a one time payment. A lower subscription price (say a dollar a month) might have sounded good to users psychologically, kept a revenue stream going for the stated future development, and offered the potential for recapture of user tokens as users drop out of their ecosystem over time for whatever reason, which they could then convert to revenue again.
I really have to imagine that they at least considered it, -I'd love to know why they decided against it.
After tweet deck, this has become the driving principal. If twitter restricts platform usage, then they don't have to worry about that happening again.
That is the answer.
On reflection, given their recent behaviour as a company I can understand that.
I prefer Yorufukurou over over the other clients I have tried, and its free on the App Store or the developer's site.