Whatley Wednesday - Should Gravity come down?

xerxes wrote:This article is utter rubbish (as are all James Whattley diatribes in my opinion) and I'm sorry that AAS saw fit to give it page space.

The only person who has the right to determine the price of a piece of software is the author and he has made a trial version available to allow potential customers to decide whether the software is worth the price.

If consumers think the price is too high they can exercise their right not to buy it but indulging in this sort of "it aught to be cheaper" twoddle is frankly insulting to the author.

It doesn't matter what price level the author chooses there will always be people who will shout that it's too expensive.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It was my editorial decision to clear it. So you can blame me. AAS has always followed the many voices model of content. It is worth listening to all opinions. Now there's time when stuff gets published on AAS that I do not agree with the opinion (e.g. I tend to play down the significance of video performance in purchasing decisions), but as the editor I don't have the exclusive on being right - that's why you'll see distinctive voices (or at least I hope you do). That doesn't mean there isn't back and forth discussion before publishing by the way. and if you feel very strongly about something I'm always happy to receive ideas / pitches for guest editorials etc.

As I've said I personally think Gravity is very good value for money, but there is a discussion to be had around pricing in general (as seems clear on this comment thread).

You're absolutely right about the author's right to set whatever pricing they choose. However that does not mean it is not worth discussing what that might be. I would assume most developers would want to maximise their earnings.

I'd also point out the everyone commenting here that the editorial was not aimed at Gravity's pricing specifically. It was a general comment on pricing - and yes you can hedge around this, but this is an issue that is going to become more important, not less. However it is an emotive topic and certainly generates a lot of passion. Which is probably why some people have missed what was meant to be the main point of the piece. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that should be respected.

Unregistered wrote:By the way, no matter what I thought about the price of Gravity initially, I have to say that this article on AllAboutSymbian was a complete disappointment.
If you guys had to talk about the high prices of S60 applications then the TITLE should not have been targeted at Gravity.

Why not? Gravity was what started the thought off in the first place and actually - the TITLE of the piece was actually put in the form of a QUESTION so that YOU THE READERS could make up YOUR OWN MIND.
Is this a new thing?

Unregistered wrote:
There are MANY other applications even more expensive.

This much we agree on.

Unregistered wrote:
The TITLE of this article is a direct attack on a single developer which will surely bring negative PR to it.

I'm not sure that you understand the notion of 'Negative PR'. My piece, as I've stated numerous times above, was not a 'direct attack on a single developer' in any way, shape or form. To think such would be foolish.

Unregistered wrote:
You guys could have named the article 'S60 apps - high prices' or whatever... But naming one app in the title is just trying to bring negative attention to it.
I expect better from AllAboutSymbian next time. Don't turn into a screaming tabloid with flashy titles.

A screaming tabloid? I'm not sure I get your point. Feel free to elaborate.
I really expect better from the readers of AllAboutSymbian next time.

...another 'unregistered' - *sigh*

James,
I don't know if you did it deliberately. After seeing your comments here, I think you perhaps didn't even realize and still don�t grasp how negative your article is for all the symbian developers.
The worst thing is that you singled out just one application. Why? Is it the most overpriced application? Is it a waste of money because it is just one of those ridiculous applications that nobody really needs? NO � it�s just the hottest application around at the moment. So you could be sure to get a lot of attention. Great strategy. But somehow it has backfired on you, didn�t it? Most people who commented here seem to think it is fair to pay a reasonable price for a great application. Personally, I think mobileways could have charged even more for it. If the price decline goes on, many talented developers won�t be able to do this work any more if they have to make a living from it. And the �one-man-companies� like mobileways would be the first to vanish from the market.

whatleydude wrote:

It is by no way meant as an insult to you personally or in fact the quality of your application.
Consider it more of a commentary on how much the market has changed so much over the past 18mths since the advent of (competitive) app stores.

Also, for the record, I had no idea it was just one person behind this app - an amazing feat if you ask me and something you should be congratulated for.
I'd like to think that this piece, along with the masses of ongoing conversation on and off Twitter has given more power to your elbow in regards to your programming skills.

No, you didn�t do Jan Ole Suhr any kind of favour with this article (and yes I know what negative PR is). If you say an application is overpriced, you say it's just not worth the money. This is insulting for the developer.

whatleydude wrote:

Rafe has my contact details. I'd love to chat sometime about some of these thoughts in more detail be it over email or IM or whatever. I'm sorry you felt sad and bitter, that was not my intention at all. Anyone that knows me will tell you that that really isn't my bag at all.

This is soooo nice. But wouldn't it have been so much nicer if you had spoken to him before?!?

Rafe,
I can�t understand why All About Symbian publishes an article that is nothing but negative for all Symbian developers and that singles out just one application. It was not a general comment on pricing, as you said. It was all about Gravity, even the title (which is your responsibility). Do you really still think this is fair?

Looking forward to next week: �Whatley Wednesday � Should the 5800 be free?�

Unregistered wrote:
Rafe,
I can’t understand why All About Symbian publishes an article that is nothing but negative for all Symbian developers and that singles out just one application. It was not a general comment on pricing, as you said. It was all about Gravity, even the title (which is your responsibility). Do you really still think this is fair?

Unregistered - yes I do still think it is fair because it is a valid opinion point. I'm not saying it is the only opinion point. However I imagine we're just going to disagree on this. You'll note the title of the article was a question not a statement (implying opinion). I have to admit I didn't give a great deal of thought to the title at the time, I thought it was a good play on words, and should draw people into the article. However I shall endeavour to consider the implications more carefully in the future. I would accept that just reading the title would lead some to think the article was all about Gravity (those more familiar with AAS might know we often 'play' with the title).

As for why we published it - because I think it is an important area to discuss. We're not going to not publish something just because it might be regarded as negative by some. Just in the same way as when reviewing software and hardware we will say what we think is bad about it.

You think it singles out one application and is not a general comment on pricing - fair enough that's your opinion. However that is not my opinion and was not the intention. Clearly, with hindsight, there is ambiguity to read the article more than one way. But, I think that is always going to be the case with an emotive topic.

What is has done is promote a lot of discussion and if I had to draw an overall conclusion I would say that amongst AAS' audience a significant portion would be happy to pay $10+ for apps. I'm not sure how widely that would apply though. Nonetheless it might be an encouraging data point for a developer looking to create application for a tech saavy audience.

Looking forward to next week: “Whatley Wednesday – Should the 5800 be free?”

For most people in the UK the 5800 is already free because they get it on a contract. I know that's not what you mean (and that assertion would be misleadingly incomplete), but I use this as an illustration...

Unregistered wrote:James,
I don't know if you did it deliberately. After seeing your comments here, I think you perhaps didn't even realize and still don’t grasp how negative your article is for all the symbian developers.

In what way?
In the new world of iPhone App Stores & Android Marketplaces, Symbian applications (in their current iteration) will be seen, by the normal mobile phone using market, as over-priced.

As I said in the original piece:
"There are many of you who will disagree with me, this I know."

Also, suggesting that my piece was a deliberate swipe at Symbian Developers in general is nothing short of insulting. Given that many of my friends and colleagues - many of whom I have worked with on such applications in the past - fall into this category. It wasn't an insult to Janole, nor to his application. It was a comment about the change in the market.

Christ you lot are hard work.

Unregistered wrote:The worst thing is that you singled out just one application. Why? Is it the most overpriced application? Is it a waste of money because it is just one of those ridiculous applications that nobody really needs? NO – it’s just the hottest application around at the moment. So you could be sure to get a lot of attention. Great strategy.

I 'chose' Gravity as the application to talk about because - as I pointed out in the original piece - (really, how often do I have to point this out) - it was the price of Gravity that took me so much by surprise. If you were part of the original conversation on Twitter on the day of release you'd know this! There's only so many times I can say it... I included screengrabs to prove it!

*sigh*

And by insinuating that I *planned* to take on this app just for 'a lot of attention' is quite frankly, ridiculous.
Do you honestly think that I was tucked away somewhere in my top secret lair, stroking an evil feline pet of some description, scheming and planning what application I should assassinate first?
Which one would bring me the most attention? Really?

Dramatic? Much?

Unregistered wrote:But somehow it has backfired on you, didn’t it?

Um.. How? To pick up your point of:

Unregistered wrote:Most people who commented here seem to think it is fair to pay a reasonable price for a great application.

Well, you're right. Most people agreed. Some didn't.
This what we call conversation and intelligent debate.
Not sure how that quantifies 'back-firing', your logic seems fuzzy at best.

It's a shame that you see fit to take personal pot-shots at my work/integrity with your unregistered account. I have - for the most part - really enjoyed the debate this post has triggered and there's a larger conversation to be had here. I just wish you hadn't taken the thing so damn personally and instead seen the bigger picture.

Unregistered wrote:Personally, I think mobileways could have charged even more for it.

Well done. You have an opinion. Which, by the way, is all my original piece is.

Unregistered wrote:If the price decline goes on, many talented developers won’t be able to do this work any more if they have to make a living from it. And the “one-man-companies” like mobileways would be the first to vanish from the market.

This is actually a very valid point. Your first so far. Well done.
Ignoring the troll-feeding for a second:

As I said in my original piece - there's a definite 'sweet-spot' to be hit when pricing applications. I pointed out that distribution is a problem and that, with the advent of the Ovi Store, hopefully this will change.
On Ovi, Gravity will have access to millions of app-hungry consumers.
Millions. That's crazy. Jan is set to make a fortune... if the app is priced correctly. I sincerely hope he does.

Please don't forget that I'm coming at this from a purely consumer point of view. Along with my own personal experience, the piece above was written with the best intentions.

I write marketing strategies for a living 'unregistered' and this involves setting price-points, creating distribution channels and ultimately creating market buzz. It's my job.

Unregistered wrote:No, you didn’t do Jan Ole Suhr any kind of favour with this article (and yes I know what negative PR is). If you say an application is overpriced, you say it's just not worth the money. This is insulting for the developer.

Again. Epic missing of the point. It isn't that the app is not worth the money.
(I have a paid-up version myself) It's that the marketplace is changing.

Unregistered wrote:This is soooo nice. But wouldn't it have been so much nicer if you had spoken to him before?!?

To what end? Surely this is for Janole to decide and not you?
Whoever you are?

Actually, saying that - the offer is open to you as well, anyone in fact.
Seriously - I do NOT have an issue with any developer and am genuinely keen to have an adult conversation about any of these issues.

Unregistered wrote:Rafe,
I can’t understand why All About Symbian publishes an article that is nothing but negative for all Symbian developers and that singles out just one application. It was not a general comment on pricing, as you said. It was all about Gravity, even the title (which is your responsibility). Do you really still think this is fair?

"Nothing but negative" ? - Again, I ask - did you actually read the piece?

Is this: "For the record, I think Gravity is awesome. It is by far and away the best native S60 application for Twitter currently available." - negative?
Is this: "I said to Jonathan at the time: “Wow! This is just like Tweetdeck, but for your mobile... Sweet!”" - negative?
Is this: ...post-installation, I log in, have a play and overall, I must say I was rather impressed." - negative?

Come on, say what you will about my opinion, but at least stick to the facts.

Unregistered wrote:Looking forward to next week: “Whatley Wednesday – Should the 5800 be free?”

Psst - it is http://shop.vodafone.co.uk/shop/deals/nokia-5800-10-mths-hlf-prc-17-50?source=omd&wt.srch=1&lpsrc=Google&lpgroup=01+152+001+Nokia+5800+Top+Traffic

Finally, thank you for at least raising one valid point with your 'unregistered' response.
I'm sure that any clich�s about forum trolls being anonymous cowards are completely coincidental and totally unsubstantiated.

Cheers.

The London Social Media Centre? Such a place exists?

Sweet Jesus, 64 posts over whether Nathan Barley feels �7 is too much for the app-of-the-moment (and now 65 with mine)?

It's final proof there is no God. Can't be.

Hey Morpheus 😊

The London Social Media Cafe - aka 'Tuttle Club' - does indeed exist and you're very welcome to come along anytime.
The name doesn't do it any favours admittedly, but it's a very handy co-working space in central London with free wifi, good food and (normally) a bunch of interesting people to.
More details can be found here http://tuttleclub.wordpress.com/

Say what you like about me (sorry, have we actually met?), but don't knock Tuttle until you've tried it.
Come along one day, you might actually have a good time 😊

I'll even buy you a coffee.

Cheers,

J.

Hey James

I've tried reading the link about the 'Tuttle Club' three times now but every time I try, the music from the Magic Roundabout just comes into my head.

I say most things in gentle jest. But how many friends do you have called 'Josh'? 😉

Cheers

M