People Sure to Buy? Charge a Lot!
posted on november 18, 2003, tag: software
I use three 'haxies' because they change things in OS X that bother me. I use them because they're seamless and work correctly and do what I need them to do. I use them because, at $10 each, they're worth the amount of use I get out of them.
I use WindowShade X because I can't live without being able to shade windows in OS X (double-click the window's top bar and the window shades up to just the top bar). Why Apple removed this in OS X (it was in OS 9), I don't understand at all, but WSX does it for me now.
I use FruitMenu because Apple's default Apple Menu in OS X is a waste. There's nothing in there, and I like to be able to customize what I see with things I'll use most. I put quick-links to apps I launch all the time but don't want in the dock (like Disk Utility for making disc images when sending out xPad betas and Remote Desktop Connection for controlling my PC), and I reorder system functions (like Log Out, Sleep, etc) to make more sense. Without FruitMenu I would probably never touch the Apple Menu at all, and that would be a waste.
I used to use Menu Master, and will use it again soon when it is compatible with Panther, because Cocoa has this really great ability to have shortcut-keys changed on the fly—and a lot of applications have shortcut-keys I don't like or lack what I consider to be important shortcuts. For instance, in Transmit, I assigned CMD+S to Upload, because when I'm working on a website, it plays really well with what my brain is thinking already (in BBEdit, save changes with CMD+S, Exposé to Transmit, upload with CMD+S). I also assigned things like CMD+Z to zoom in iTunes, so I can zoom open and closed the window quickly (since I like to play music with iTunes in 'tiny' mode). Any day now, Menu Master will be compatible with Panther and I'll get to use it again.
You might say that $30 for that functionality isn't worth it, but I would disagree. For a mere $30, I have added missing functionality that makes using my computer easier and more enjoyable. Can you put a price on something like that? Well, you can, but it's hard. After all, when choosing $10 as the price for each of these haxies, Unsanity surely had a lot to consider. Will the price of this application seem justified in comparison to the features? Does this application provide something people are looking for/need? Hell, I just went through this when coming up with the price of xPad.
In most cases, Unsanity is right on the mark with its prices. When they released FontCard, they priced the haxie at $17—due to its features, the community it was aimed at, and the prices of other competing applications—and I thought that was fair. I didn't buy it, because I don't have that much use for it, but I understood the price point.
Today, Unsanity released ShapeShifter, a "revolutionary new product that lets you change the overall appearance of your Mac using 'themes'." I'm not sure that it's "revolutionary," since many other applications have been changing OS X themes for a few years now, but ignoring that I will conceed that it handles theme changing in a new way that is inherently safer for the system and user, and that's a good thing. The only problem is, ShapeShifter is $20.
Why is that a problem? It's a problem because the release of ShapeShifter didn't only involve Unsanity, it also involved several of the Mac community's top theme designers. And, from the looks of it, these theme designers will now be designing themes only for SS (I could be wrong about this, but even if I am, other people will surely devote all their effort to only SS formatted themes in the future). This means that for people to use these themes, they'll need to pay $20 to Unsanity. So what? Well, ThemeChanger, the application everyone used to change themes until yesterday, was free.
Knowing this, it feels to me like Unsanity set the price at $20 just because they knew people would buy it, not because of what it does. I understand it's a leap in theming technology for OS X (how big that leap is I do not yet know), but I feel as though Unsanity had an opportunity to help the community more than profit from it to this extent. Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying it should have been free—it's just that I always get angry when someone attempts to corner the market.
Would I have reacted like this if the price were $10? No. I probably wouldn't even have reacted this way if the price were the same as FontCard ($17). I think something about it being the most expensive Unsanity product ever (by more than 15%) strikes a nerve with me. It feels much more about making money than about revolutionizing anything.
Updated to add:
I think pricing would pricing be more accurate if ShapeShifter were only $5, but each theme you used cost 99¢. The price breakdown could be something like the iTMS, in that Unsanity would get a percentage of the buck, and the theme design would get the rest.
Maybe that's another thing that's holding me back from paying $20 for the app. While I understand that ThemeChanger could cause problems, it never did for me. Not once. And the app is free. I would be much happier paying for the themes themselves than for the means to apply them. After all, in the long run, it's the theme designers who are doing all the real work on the front-lines. Imagine if SS came out, but no themes had been created... no one would buy the software. For that matter, there is no purpose for the software at all without excellent and continuous theme design and release.
If Unsanity wishes to revolutionize the theme community, I think they should lower the price of ShapeShifter, and encourage theme designers to create a new community in which they are paid for their hard work. Even if it's only a dollar at a time.
Not coicidentally, themes are the topic of Erik's QotD.
Comments
There are 10 comments, comments are closed
bryan on 11/18/2003:
Perhaps the pricing has something to do with being able to make a profit and/or stay in business? Unsanity doesn't charge for updates AT ALL, thus they must all they can from a product on a single license... not to mention the free option could hose your entire OS, this can't even mess up an icon.
Would you like to see Unsanity go under because they have no money to pay their programmers or afford their hosting? I think not. Remember, you are paying to support the future of the product. If you don't believe it's worth it, don't pay... but don't complain about price gouging when they are more than competitive. (consider: Photo to Movie started at $10 for a license and is now $50... how about complaining about that gouge instead)
BTW, do you dislike Apple for cornering the music market with iTunes or other markets in the Mac community with the offerings they bundle (undermining independent developers sometimes, i.e. with Watson)
Also... I doubt the designers are doing it for free if their work is being so commercialized... thus they have to be paid too and that factors in.
Garrett on 11/18/2003:
Bryan: While I agree that Unsanity has other issues to deal with (hosting, paying employees, etc), I don't think I would compare ShapeShifter with the iTunes music store, since the iTMS charges 99¢ a song. iTunes is free.
I have added additional thoughts to the entry regarding this iTMS-related comment and what that price-scheme could mean for the community.
cloudaj on 11/18/2003:
Why is it $20.00? The developer of the application is the same as the one that develops themepark, and it has been at the price of $20.00. Apparently he's allowed to still sell his application but i guess they have an agreement that one wont undercut the other. Thats my guess anyway. As i look at unsanity's site though a lot of their stuff is pretty pricey. Im all for supporting developers but $20.00 is extreme. I also am hesitant to support what Unsanity has done with their new format. If i decide I want to use the new theme format / themes developed for it I will be buying themepark. I don't want to support Unsanity and i really dislike ape's (unless this uses an ape too...in which case im screwed i guess :P )
bryan on 11/18/2003:
I was not comparing iTunes to ShapeShifter per se, only in the sense that the poster doesn't like anyone who "attempts to corner the market." iTunes has destroyed the market for any other sound application on the Mac. The only others I know of were Soundjam (now iTunes), and Mint Audio (from Unsanity ironically.)
Apple's recent financials show that the iTMS is a loss leader for the iPod, thus the songs actually negatively impact the bottom line as a method to sell a much more expensive product. This is an effective strategy for a corporate giant such as MS, Apple, Sun, IBM or many others but for small-scale developers... not so much.
Are free themes and a $20 app that much different from a cheap song and a $300 player? Not really. Both in a sense are a baiting tactic meant to entice you to buy the actual offering (which makes the profit.)
Unsanity does not have a multi-billion dollar bankroll on which to lean when launching something like SS. Remember, iTunes is a gateway to the store, which is a lead-in to the iPod... a chain in which Apple loses significant amounts of money developing to be able to sell the destination (iPod.) Not to mention the millions spent acquiring the C & G Soundjam codebase to make iTunes.
Unsanity does offer free applications and trials, unlike many other commercialized applications (including many notable Apple ones) and do support the communities their applications join.
As a developer I find the comment "it’s the theme designers who are doing all the real work on the front-lines" very offensive. While they do a great and laborous job, that is their passion and calling card and without the countless hours of work to make a theming system that works (and safely!) they would simply be making pretty bitmaps to stare at in Photoshop. If 10.4 breaks every theming method out there, will the theme designers fix it? I don't think so.
Don't put the cart before the horse... no theme system, no use for themes. It's not as if ShapeShifter is meant to be a shot across the bow of the theming community, it's meant to offer them a new and powerful option to take as they will.
cloudaj on 11/18/2003:
disregard my comment, i didnt realize that themepark didn't actually apply themes.
Vinay Venkatesh on 11/18/2003:
I should point out that Kaleidoscope had the same price point. :)
Shawn on 11/18/2003:
If the price is too high, people will not buy it and they will lower the price. Similarly, no one will develop for a program that no one uses.
Jeffrey on 11/18/2003:
cloudaj: $20 extreme? Have you ever developed software before? There are numerous costs associated with developing good software be it shareware or not.
You want to talk about extreme pricing? Check out the former developers of the original Mac themer for "classic", Kaleidoscope, Arlo Rose's Konfabulator which costs $25 for a glorified javascript engine that doesn't do anything useful and takes a TON of overhead.
But whatever, these are the choices that make the world go round and no one has to agree.
josh on 11/19/2003:
I'm glad Kaleidoscope has been mentioned. However, just because an older system appearance modification app was of the same price point, doesn't necessarily make ShapeShifter the right price. It also doesn't solve what I believe to be the main issue raised by Garret—that theme designers aren't getting paid for their tremendous amount of work. This was the case in Kaleidoscope too. I think this is primary reason why so many k schemes were so BAD! There were many nice schemes, but the designers got little for there efforts. Credit for being a interface designing genius doesn't pay the heating bill. Though it may generate business for "paid" work. I'm sure it has for some.
Jeffrey on 11/19/2003:
Again, I don't think the price of ShapeShifter is unreasonable. I do agree that scheme designers should be paid for their work IF they want to get paid. If so, charge for your scheme. Unless there is some Apple legal "law" somewhere within the mess that is the license agreement for the OS that states you'd can't charge for a theme or some legal mumbo jumbo, theme designers can and should charge for their work. It would make choosing a theme a lot easier because it will eliminate a lot of the junk themes that did appear with Kaleidoscope.
I will pay for a good theme and I'm sure others will as well. Most likely though people will complain but I think charging $5 for a good theme isn't too much to ask for your hard work.