Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

Interesting that the "scholarship" (free) plan isn't mentioned on the homepage. It seems you have to try and steal the product before being offered the free plan.

I also like the subtle dig, "if you can't afford it." I've certainly pirated things myself. If iTunes asked me, "We noticed you've pirated The Walking Dead. If you can't afford $3, click here to get it for free." By reframing it as charity I might be shamed into purchasing it. :)

That's certainly a novel approach. I would love to hear how it turns out.

View on HN

A company I used to work for made bible software. You could browse different bible versions side-by-side, collect verses etc., designed for people seriously into it (like priests composing their sermon).

But some of these people would still copy the software instead of ordering the disk from us. We didn't really detect that, but the boss added a screen that just randomly pops up reminding the user that if you are running a copy now, remember that copying is WRONG.

We would get repenting phone calls from users begging to be forgiven.

My little finger tells me you would have received less calls if the company sold video games, or pornography, for example.

I for one would like to see a study that shows that people who read bible are more moral than people who don't read bible (or people who play video games). In my anecdotal evidence, there is no real correlation, but hey, science.

The key I think is people reading the bible have their minds engaged in the thoughts of morality.

This was software aimed at people seriously studying the bible with a reminder that would come up when they're reflecting on their religion. And you think that's irrelevant?

They've already pirated the software so it's not morality, it's guilt.

Is it even meaningful to talk of guilt without morality?

While both are social responses derived from some societal "standard" and ones interaction with it; the former, I typically think of, as being more of an involuntary reaction, whereas the later is thought of as motivating conscious behavior. The often hypocritical actions of people who will do something until they get caught, is the big example. Clearly it is not against someones personal morals, but it does generate a response due to a negative interaction with another member of society, which in many cases might be motivated by guilt.

Terrible wording aside, I think the two have both intersecting and unique qualities, guilt and morality, that depending on the person will be called into play at various points in the decision making process.

Disclaimer: IANAbehaviorist, I was just raised by one, and nearly married to one.

In my anecdotal evidence there's actually huge, but hey, that's exactly what we have science for.

Another factor might be that it's probably easier to admit you're illegally reading the bible, than illegally watching porn.

The evidence is actually to the contrary.

The incarceration rates of atheists vs christians in the US are quite telling.

Care to provide a reference to some numbers for the lazy folks like me? ;).

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what...

Seems like 0.07% from survey by Federal Bureau of Prisons.

There are two problems with that:

1. I don't think the data actually exists. The commonly cited figure of 0.2% atheists is extremely dubious.

2. There are too many confounding factors and hidden variables. A plurality of Hindus speak Hindi, but believing in Hinduism neither causes, nor is caused by speaking Hindi. Likewise, if atheists are underrepresented in prisons, there are just too many simple demographic explanations to draw any conclusions about morality.

Your opinion about the cited figure is much more dubious than the data we got from an independent research analyst who didn't care for the data.

Be careful when trying to untangle correlation and causation: it may well be that poor people and criminals are more likely to turn to religion. After all, atheism is mainly found in more educated populations.

You don't want to be an outlier in the prison system. If you're not on board with everyone else, there is a real possibility that you're going to get hurt. I think this is part of the reason Atheists are so underrepresented in the prison population. Simple self-preservation.

I read a study a while back (and I cannot seem to find it now, annoyingly) that found that people with high moral status (priests, judges, etc.) behaved less morally than ordinary people. Which makes sense in terms of evolution; if you're already viewed by everyone as moral, acting morally is a waste of resources and opportunities.

Your morality is how you behave when nobody's watching.

Which set of morals were used? How were people's morality assessed? How comprehensive was it? What about secret behaviour? In terms of evolution, surely there are benefits to behaving morally other than reciprocation and social status.

A study like that would be almost impossible to do. A lot depends on how you define "moral". Is telling a gay person "Homosexuality is wrong" moral or immoral? Is admitting that "Mohammed is the final messanger of God" moral or immoral? Is calling the Pope God's representative on earth moral or immoral? Is calling Jesus devine moral or immoral? Until you can define what you're trying to measure, you cannot do any study.

> Is telling a gay person "Homosexuality is wrong" moral or immoral?

Maybe. Because it is a question on which significant numbers of people differ, it would be a poor choice for such a study.

> Is admitting that "Mohammed is the final messanger [sic] of God" moral or immoral?

No.

> Is calling the Pope God's representative on earth moral or immoral?

No.

> Is calling Jesus devine [sic] moral or immoral?

No.

> Until you can define what you're trying to measure, you cannot do any study.

Not every action is moral or immoral, and some actions have a moral component but it is debated which is preferable. On the other hand, LOTS of actions have clearly defined and widely accepted morality. Construct your study so you measure whether participants take more than their share of M&Ms or whether they cheat on the test when they think it will be undetectable.

> Not every action is moral or immoral

True, but there are some actions which some people think are moral, and some think are immoral. The religious questions I gave are like that. People disagree about whether an action is moral or immoral. Some Christians will think that it's moral and right and good to call Jesus divine (and a sin and immoral to claim the opposite), whereas some (say) Muslims will think that it's blashpemy and wrong and immoral to call Jesus divine (and a moral and good thing to claim the opposite).

Asumming that a subset of moral questions have black an white answers (or nearly), couldn't the study just look only at those questions?

It depends on the video game or the porn in question. A Bible is going to prime for social/moral thoughts and feelings in a very significant way. For a religious person I doubt there's anything that could make attitudes about morality more accessible, and accessibility is almost the whole story for behavior.

I think if a video game loading screen told you "Piracy is WRONG!" it would be ineffective in GTA, neutral in Civilization, and effective about half the time in Mass Effect.

Likewise, if gonzo porn had interstitials about how copying is wrong, I doubt anyone would be moved by it, but if political feminist porn had little interludes where the director said she didn't make much off her work and would rather you support her, it would almost certainly be effective.

People who are religious will happily do a whole number of viciously amoral things, like go to war, kill people, or make others feel subhuman for their gender or sex preferences. But people in general will react as the situation warrants, and if you can control that situation you can control people.

"political feminist porn". That's a thing???

Ladies like to watch sexy people having sexy times in ways that fit into their value systems, too.

I'm interested. Where can I find some?

http://pinkwhite.biz/

Oh yeah. I don't know what the market size is but it's definitely a thing. Pink and White Productions is a good example.

Feminists really aren't any better than religious people. As an atheist white man, I'm hated by both, but I'll sooner respect a christian than a feminist.

As an agnostic white man who is also a feminist, this comment makes me sad. So sad in fact that I created an account just to come say something about it.

There are undoubtedly angry people, willing to lash out at anyone they think may have wronged them, and some of those people may identify as feminists. That doesn't mean that feminists hate men, white or otherwise, anymore than men hate women as a class of people.

However, white men have a lot of cultural privilege in America, and privilege is an insidious beast. It's really hard to see unless you're on the wrong side of it, or spend time giving it some thought. I've been trying to be better about that lately, to at least become aware of the things that society have given to me with no effort of my own, but it takes time.

I don't want to rant at you, but I like to try to educate people when they mis-step. Personally, my ability to respect anyone comes from a place of understanding that they are trying to work to better themselves and others, and try to elevate the dialogue a little. Respect for decent Christians, and respect for Feminists, for me, comes from the same place.

They're just trying to do right in the world. It's hard though. The world is a tough place to get by for anyone, no matter where you come from.

Anyway, I hope you have some opportunities to grow and realize lack of respect for a group of people seeking to be respected is a failure of imagination on your part. I'm sure the world will keep presenting you the lesson until you've either made progress on it, or become so set in your ways as to be blinded to the possibility.

Ciao!

>That doesn't mean that feminists hate men, white or otherwise, anymore than men hate women as a class of people.

That's a nice false equivalence you've got there.

>However, white men have a lot of cultural privilege

Oh goody, you're hiding behind the boogieman, aka "privilege". In modern, "western" culture there's really no cultural privilege for men. Unless we're going to count the privilege to be drafted, or murdered, or die on the job with nary a twitch of the feminist diaspora.

>Anyway, I hope you have some opportunities to grow and realize lack of respect for a group of people seeking to be respected is a failure of imagination on your part

That's rather nonsensical. Just because a group wants to be respected doesn't mean they deserve respect.

If you believe that modern western cultures are not gender biased and this state of affairs is worth preserving, then you are a feminist! You can't deny it because you have just advocated for gender equality.

Feminism advocates for autonomy for everyone. Everyone should be able to make choices about how to live their life instead of having those choices made for them. Everyone should have control over their own body. Everyone should have control over their own self image.

You may not perceive it, but many people live in cultures in which they are strongly pushed toward ideal body types, lifestyles, and choices from many angles: family, community, media, friends. This affects both men and women. If people who live in traditionally patriarchal western cultures can now say honestly that they perceive no gender bias, then feminism has won. It may not have won the war, but it has at least won some battles, and it will continue fighting for equality for all.

No, you really don't get to sling this kind of bullshit around.

> If you believe that modern western cultures are not gender biased and this state of affairs is worth preserving, then you are a feminist! You can't deny it because you have just advocated for gender equality.

No, if you're going to insist on naming it, it is "egalitarian". I also don't believe this state of affairs is worth preserving.

>Feminism advocates for autonomy for everyone.

No, no it doesn't. Feminism, by design and definition, advocates for the rights of women. Or rather, I should say, "womyn" since large, vocal factions of the feminist movement don't support the rights of trans-people. But I'm guessing you're one of those feminists that like to no true scotsman those feminists out of play, I guess their opinion don't count.

Also, fuck your patriarchy bullshit. It's a convenient scapegoat and surrogate evil upon which much of modern feminist dogma is based.

Well if you don't desire equality for all under the law, if you prefer special privileges based on gender or another arbitrary aspect, then you certainly aren't a feminist. I won't argue that point, but I hope you understand my meaning of egalitarianism. I've often seen it confused with advocating weakness when it in fact means that everyone is treated fairly and given equal opportunity. I'm interested in what kind of position you do hold about how society should be structured. Perhaps you prefer a meritocracy, but that would require egalitarianism as a base state.

Feminists advocate for the rights of women but not exclusively so. We advocate equality and address inequalities. Feminists support men as well when they are victims of inequalities. Of course, feminism is a broad movement and not a dogmatic cult, and therefore you will find those who do not support the rights of trans people, but they are not representative of the majority of feminists.

Since its inception in the 19th century, feminism has expanded to address all aspects of gender in culture and identity. Many feminists like myself do not consider gender to be a binary position but a spectrum of cultural expressions. It is therefore impossible to advocate the rights of women without advocating the rights of men because no one is entirely "man" or "woman." No one fits neatly into static gender stereotypes. The rights of trans, intersexed, and genderqueer people are extremely important as we move forward.

In the long term, I feel it's especially important that we question traditional gender roles because we have an increasingly powerful ability to manipulate our biology. We will see increasing amounts of people with bodies and minds that do not conform to our expectations because they are fundamentally different, and we need to develop a cultural understanding for relating to people who do not conform to our preconceived notions of gender expression.

>Unless we're going to count the privilege to be drafted, or murdered, or die on the job with nary a twitch of the feminist diaspora.

There's the privilege to not be raped.

Or, the privilege to not be sexually harassed, on the street by strangers, in the office by people you have to see every day, or anywhere else.

The privilege to wear clothing that is comfortable and cheap and socially accepted, and to wear that clothing without being judged as having "given up" or being slobbish.

There's the privilege to register at a conference without being assumed to be the boyfriend of the co-worker you're at the table getting badges with.

There's the privilege to get a job, fellowship, or acceptance to a school without being seen as an "affirmative action" choice who must not be really good enough for whatever position you've obtained.

The privilege to speak up for yourself without being called a bitch, and to do so on the Internet without receiving rape threats.

The privilege to grow up with a massive and wide variety of role models who are active, dynamic agents enforcing their will on the world, rather than submissive prizes awarded to those who wear down their "resistance" until they submit.

It is utterly laughable to suggest that being a man does not come with a huge, incalculable amount of privilege, in any part of the world.

It is insane to do so in the technology community, which has been acting to expel what few women attempted to inhabit it (probably not by intention, but certainly by result).

>There's the privilege to not be raped.

Now if only it weren't for the fact that the majority of rapes are institutional, ie. in prison, and are committed by women against women. Or the fact that rape laws have been shaped by feminism in a way to make men the only ones capable of raping in an overwhelming majority of sexual encounters -- rape being defined by the likes of the FBI as forced penetration with a penis or object. Or that male rape victims are routinely marginalized in media. Or that the same illegal conduct by a male is "rape" but is only "sexual assualt" when committed by a female. Or the utter disproportionality of punishment for male verse female perpetrators. Or the various "rape shield" laws that allow the accused to be dragged through the mud in the press while "protecting" the accuser, even when the accuser is proven false. Or that women have started to view calling sexual encounters rape as a "get out of trouble free, card.

>Or, the privilege to not be sexually harassed, on the street by strangers, in the office by people you have to see every day, or anywhere else.

Yes, men are never sexual harassed. Neeeeever.

>The privilege to wear clothing that is comfortable and cheap and socially accepted, and to wear that clothing without being judged as having "given up" or being slobbish.

Once again, a non-gendered "privilege"

>There's the privilege to get a job, fellowship, or acceptance to a school without being seen as an "affirmative action" choice who must not be really good enough for whatever position you've obtained.

Having been involved, first hand, on both the applicant and hiring side I've seen the results of forced "equality" in hiring. It rarely increases talent and often harms it.

And on and on...Your list is full of tropes that are half truths or ignore the two-sided nature of things. I'm glad the echo-chamber of self-victimization is working out for you though.

If anything you're being sexist by classifying this as a gender issue rather then a societal issue. Many of the things you listed effect both men and women. Sexual harassment and advances go both ways, for one. And if you speak up as a man you're considered an 'asshole'. No different then a 'bitch'. It's just childish terminology that really shouldn't be tolerated in the workplace to begin with. Women are equal now. Nobody sees hiring a woman as 'affirmative action' they are seen as somebody who will be an asset to the company. Somebody who can earn money. From what I've read recently their pay across the board is the same or better then their male counterparts, but don't quote me on this. You talk like this is the 50s, and it makes me wonder where you live that is so far in the past? In other parts of the world I will admit, being a man still carries a lot of advantages - not so much in the US.

I don't hate you — I'm a Christian, so I disagree with you about religion, but why would I hate you? I think most feminists don't really hate men, white or otherwise, either, though you and I might tend to have opinions that they disagree with. That is to say, don't mistake disagreement for hate.

I don't think that most feminists hate men. Most people who identify as feminists are pretty liberal, Hillary-Clinton-esque feminists, or "fun"-feminists of the "Pole dancing is empowering!" sort.

Of the feminists that do hate men, I think most of them do because they have experienced oppression at the hands of men in very direct ways, such as:

* Sexual harassment (probably all of the women you know have been sexually harassed)

* Sexual assault (one in four on average, higher than that for women in the global majority/women of color)

* Overt sexism (being derided as an "affirmative action" placement, told to make sandwiches/get off the Internet, etc.)

* Covert sexism (being assumed to be a subordinate in an office, being assumed to be an assistant/boyfriend at tech conferences, being singled out for "preferential" treatment in a Victorian expression of respect for fragility)

As a man, I think that there are a lot of reasons why women would hate men, and why people of color would hate whites. I think this is mostly justified. Men, and particularly white men, have and continue to do pretty absurdly horrible things, and more than that, refuse to even admit to it! The catcaller on a street doesn't think he's doing something wrong, much less the person who judges a woman more harshly for her efficacy at work (since she seems "cold" if she gets things done).

One of the best defenses of hate I've ever seen is from Butch Slaughter. You can see some of his work here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Butch%20Slaught...

Mr. Slaughter guest lectured at a class I took on domestic violence, and one of the things he said that will always stick with me is that "there are some things you're supposed to hate." Systemic inequality, and the oppression of the majority of humans, is definitely something you're supposed to hate. And I think it's impossible to wholly separate that from the people who are responsible, either by accident or by choice, in supporting such things.

The next time there's a question about misogyny in the tech community, I'm going to link to this comment.

Copying is not wrong, your business model was wrong. Shame on you for causing feelings of shame amongst your users while you try to condition them against what should be an acceptable and moral action: sharing software and sharing their religious texts.

Shame on you for judging. This was their business model. The software didn't exist; open source didn't create it. Wrong or not, there they were, like millions before them, creating value and wanting to be paid for it.

I know you are trolling, but you made it a moral issue not me.

I'm not trolling, it is a harmful business model that antagonizes their users. We will disagree, and that's fine.

You disagree with people creating value and selling it for money? Genuinely curious, what is immoral about that?

Not at all. I consider it wholly inappropriate for people to be restricted from copying and sharing data, and believe copyright should be abolished for human good. Of course I'm ok with some speech restrictions for, say, privacy reasons.

Nothing about creating value and selling it for money requires that I be prohibited in my rights about what I'm allowed to do with digital works, be they considered property or thought. Unfortunately copyright holds us back in this regard and builds an economic environment predicated on this offense.

Selling things is harmful?

Look at this beautiful statue I've made! I have put it in a public area for everyone to enjoy. You may even take pictures, however you must pay me $5 for each picture you take. If your print out multiple copies of your picture, you must send a check to my address with the payment for each additional copy.

Picture of statue = copy of software

Public area = internet

$5 per print fee = software license fee

I am not even sure if I fully believe my own analogy, but I find it interesting to think about.

RE no homepage mention of it:

I suspect there are those who would try to get it for free, regardless of how much it costs. It's probably more successful in converting those who wouldn't have paid in the first place - IE by reminding them that they've been "caught out".

Having said that, no homepage mention may be turning away the honest users who might genuinely be unable to afford it. Only offering a discount to those who cheat the system seems to be rewarding deviousness. It feels more honest, to me at least, to "remind" people that there's a student/concessionary fee available, as opposed to revealing it.

> Having said that, no homepage mention may be turning away the honest users who might genuinely be unable to afford it.

That reminds me of Airbrake.io, whose lowest-cost pricing plan was higher than I wanted to spend on a toy site I made recently. On my phone I can't find the text on their site, but in small print on the pricing page it said something like "or, we have a developer plan, which is free for one site and one user."

It was exactly what I was looking for, and I wish there were more ultra barebones plans available for otherwise-paid services.

This - rewarding deviousness - troubled me about the system too.

Perhaps, instead of explicitly mentioning the Scholarship accounts on the homepage, there could be text along lines of "Struggling to get by and can't afford it? Email us and we'll see what we can do."

This sounds like a good option. It's along the lines of their original approach, and by adding the friction and personal contact of an email, much less likely to be abused.

TL;DR - this is a shrewd play for a number of reasons.

You don't understand, it's just business.

Furthermore, the conversion of requiring people to beg via email to explain they're broke is next to zero. People won't do it. They'll take the POLR: fake accounts. Kicking them out also won't help: they can attack the brand and also if they succeed, the service looks like the bad guys. Furthermore, it builds stats by having more accounts registered on the platform. Whether those fake accounts get killed off is up to the business owner. Is padding stats worth the liability and cost of junk accounts?

We're still talking about DistroKid, so it just bought them free PR.

The point is everyone can make more money by taking a calculated gamble on positive ROI giveaways. The unit cost of an app is often pennies. Any concern about mass defection of paid users to unpaid is unlikely if the service is good and shows trying to take the high road. And that adds goodwill valuation to the brand. These intangibles make the service of higher value than a formulaic subscription service that thinks short-term only. It's not quite the same as selling gym memberships. :)

The meta is that when a service is small, keeping CAC low and getting as many users as possible while maintaining cool is hard. The churn between paid, unpaid and closed accounts is also a delicate dance to keep satisficing toward $. Sometimes giving accounts away in exchange for something non-monetary is a way go (real friends or not).

And also, don't forget gangster marketing: http://youtu.be/t73Q3f4YjwQ

"Furthermore, the conversion of requiring people to beg via email to explain they're broke is next to zero. People won't do it."

Entirely true. But it would remove the conflict of offering the scholarship option only to people who cheat, which is the whole point. They can of course continue to also offer it to those who do, just like now.

I dunno... I've used an open-source license for IntelliJ in the past, and that took a lot more work than just sending an email. (Kudos, btw, to JetBrains for their great open-source licensing program!)

It's probably less work for me to send an email explaining why I think I deserve a free account than to tell the system to send emails to five email addresses that route to me, and then do whatever I need to do to validate them.

"Any concern about mass defection of paid users to unpaid is unlikely if the service is good and shows trying to take the high road."

In my experience, this works until a user hits a moment of hardship or "meh". Then they cancel and find it's easier to reallocate those consumption dollars to something new than reboot the subscription.

But if you're not providing an essential (Mazlow) for life, isn't this going to happen anyway?

"Maslow"[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow

Thanks

True. Money and life are brutally efficient: but also stochastic processes. Value might exist, but it's utility waxes, wanes and sometimes waxes again. Hence the principle of letting go totally willingly... Having that much confidence in the value when it's needed again. ;)

I wasn't suggesting doing this instead of offering Scholarships to detected referral cheaters - I was suggesting doing it in addition to that.

"seems to be rewarding deviousness" There is a common misalignment of values, between that which is 'practical' and that which is 'right'. You see this with arguments about such things as safe injecting rooms or wahtever.

I think this is a great practical solution. They are not being rewarded with a free product (they have that already), they are being rewarded with shame and/or understanding.

The shame of being caught out may make them stop stealing. The understanding may encourage them to stick with the product and buy when they do have the money, or recommend it to others. Win / win solutions are rare and beautiful and should not be discarded for spurious moral values.

Many people will cheat until they think someone can see them, and then stop[1]. By just reminding people that someone is watching, you'll vastly increase the proportion of people who pay.

I think this is the best way to combat hidden "just data-copying" computer crimes - because people think they can't be seen while doing them, they just need to be shown that someone can see and they'll stop. (This should work on all but the small fraction of people who will steal whatever you do - again, see [1]!)

[1] "The honest truth about dishonesty", Dan Ariely http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0007477333

What if someone can afford it, but isn't willing to?

To me that means the price is too high, so maybe also let them set their own price?

It's $20 for a chance to greatly simplify selling your music. If someone doesn't see value in that, leave them to submit everything manually IMO. Can't get dragged down by tightarses.

I would suggest a free trial might as a way to demonstrate value. Obviously you can see the "great simplification" only after using it. What is the easier sell - $20 for a possibility (you called it chance) to simplify a pain point you have, or $20 for something you have already observed to simplify said pain point, and have spent time entering data into and possibly making money off of?

The first song upload is free.

I think the service is already more than generous on that front:

"How much will it cost me? You can upload one song for free."

Add in testimonials, press and word of mouth and prospects can get an indication of how useful DistroKid is likely to be.

When I said chance, I was allowing for lack of followthrough on the part of the artists. When there's a service that can get your material in front of purchasers so cheaply, a huge, huge portion of the responsibility to succeed then relies on you to create a saleable product and then drive some interest.

If someone can afford a product, but isn't willing to, then they should look elsewhere for the value provided by the product, or live without it.

That's embedded in the definition of a market--sellers get to choose the price, buyers get to choose whether or not to buy.

only in a "free-"market. Also there is a concept of "fair price" for a reason. You can't charge insane prices everywhere, especially for essential items.

Sure, I agree. Not all markets meet the concept of 'free'. But distrokid is competing in a market that is pretty close (helping musicians distribute music to services).

It's a good thing a service to help individuals sell their music on a variety of online services isn't essential.

It might be, if making music is the only real way you have to make money. Of course, in that case I would hope that you would use your proceeds to pay the service pretty quickly.

Essentials for Life: food, water, shelter, and cheap access to internet services created by other people.

Wait so if the only real way I made money was by theft, then that would make it "essential"?

Yes, that's is clearly exactly what I said.

Actually a market is a place to negotiate prices. Seller-fixed prices are an American curiosity.

Fair enough. But even in negotiated transactions, the seller sets the final price that they will or won't accept.

In a fixed market the fixed price still remains the upper bound for the negotiation. [Until there are more demands outside of the predetermined terms]

Exactly like the buyer.

The act of negotiation itself is a cost/fee that people would rather avoid - and for small purchases the need to negotiate is more costly than the actual product price.

Lack of negotiation isn't a curiosity, it reduces friction of transactions - see item, point at it, give the money, you're done; which saves effort for both parties.

I come from a "relatively" poor country with very poor musicians. A country where many national celebrities probably do not make the equivalent of what an engineer makes in San Francisco. However I am sure every last one of them can afford $19.99/year.

That doesn't mean the product is priced too high. It simply means that the value gained from the product is not perceived by a someone to be higher than the value of the currency amount being requested. That's how we make purchasing decisions. It's about perceived value and the trade-offs we make. Letting consumers set their own prices on products they subjectively perceive to be overpriced would run down prices as it'd be easier and easier to acquire goods, until everything ultimately became free.

What about people who can afford but are unwilling to buy luxury items, like Louis Vuitton bags? Should they be able to set their own price?

> Should they be able to set their own price?

He's offering it for free (for some users). I was simply suggesting he also allow those users to pick a price and pay him something.

Free isn't cheaper than cheap. Framing it as "Scholarship" puts a very intentional spin that it's meant to support (or even invest in) people who need it most. Letting people set their prices would just decrease the service's perceived value (the Humble Bundles can allegedly have value way over their average payments, but I can't really see beyond around five dollars.)

+1 point for making the most entitled statement I've heard this week

that kind of sarcasm strikes me as needlessly acerbic.

FWIW, his idea struck me as logical. I might be able to afford something that still doesn't make sense for me to buy, since I don't get eg; $20 of value from it. See econ101. But I'm not sure PWYW would be the solution here.

Setting your own price hardly works. Panera tried it for a while and while it was charitable, there were way more people who underpaid (that could actually pay) than people who would overpay. Now IIRC, they only do it once a year.

He's offering it for free (in certain cases). I was suggesting also let people pay him a small amount instead.

No, it means that some people are cheap and companies like Google have trained them that everything should be free and/or ad supported.

Perceived price certainly varies greatly depending on the buyer.

A professional musician will not think twice about paying $50 for an awesome tab software, but to me, a hobbyist guitar player, paying more than $20 would be a stretch. This has nothing to do with the quality of the product.

The Humble Bundle pricing model has shown that such an approach can be extraordinarily successful, but I'm not sure how well it can be extended to other software products.

The market is not someone who plays guitar for fun, but someone who intends to sell their music for others to listen to. If you have ever looked into selling your music, then you should know that the costs of doing so are generally insane and this is a bargain. If you've never looked into it, then you probably aren't a serious consumer for the service anyway.

I think I would have laid on the guilt a little more. Something along the lines of...

"Hi, buddy! We noticed that you created five dummy accounts in order to get access to our referral reward. Thank you for your interest. If $1.66 per month or $0.05 is too much money for you to afford at the moment and it would prevent you from having a roof over your head and feeding yourself but would still like to sell your music and make a living in pursuing your dreams of being paid for your art and work, then you should check out our scholarship account. We believe in our community and are you are a good person that would not like it if people didn't pay you for your work so we are confident you wouldn't do the same to us."

Or is that too much?

I wouldn't even read that much text in this situation.

Very powerful way to get incremental revenue by reframing the question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com