Why is Tweetbot for Mac $20?

http://tapbots.com/blog/news/tweetbot-mac/

by JeremyBanks • 14 years ago

89 84 14 years ago

bluetidepro3• 14 years ago

Tweetbot seems really awesome and I realize they explain why it is worth the $20, but I still think it's too pricey. And I don't think that because of Tweetbot, I think that because of Twitter. I'm more worried with all the sporadic changes Twitter is making lately that they could somehow do something to make Tweetbot useless. Maybe by not allowing 3rd party apps or something. Who knows? And because of that, I don't want to risk wasting $20. It's sort of like how people felt with the "Elevation Dock" on the iPhone. They got it for their iPhone 4's and then it basically became just a paperweight when the 5 came out (I realize they made a crumby adapter to make it work with the iPhone 5).

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

CyberMonk• 14 years ago

Even if the app is only around and viable for a year, if you use it every day, is it really so hard to justify spending $20 on it?

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.

bluetidepro3• 14 years ago

>Even if the app is only around and viable for a year, if you use it every day, is it really so hard to justify spending $20 on it?

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.

LeeUmm• 14 years ago

I thought it would be at the $9.99 price point, like Sparrow was. I am surprised by it being $20, but I understand given the limitations and will purchase it.

What happens to the tokens when people pirate this app? Does it count towards their limit?

Skroob• 14 years ago

"What happens to the tokens when people pirate this app? Does it count towards their limit?"

Almost definitely.

msbarnett4• 14 years ago

> What happens to the tokens when people pirate this app? Does it count towards their limit?

Yeah. There's no way for Twitter to tell them apart.

jakejake• 14 years ago

How I would think that it should work is the client downloads your token when you register the software. If you decide to share your license, the more people who use your token, the more likely that token will hit the 1,000 per day / 350 requests per hour limit on the twitter API. If you were to post your registration info on a sharing site you could effectively make that token useless for you and everybody else who was trying to use it.

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.

rockarage• 14 years ago

The irony of this is ever since I got tweetbot for my ipad, I stoped using twitter on my Mac.

PanMan• 14 years ago

So, they aim for max 1.4 million in revenue (100k x $20 - 30% for apple, minus an unknown amount for beta testers) for the lifetime of the app. How many people have worked on it?

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).

andrewmunsell2• 14 years ago

They have a limit over 100k (2x their current user base) IIRC, since they already have 100k+ users on Tweetbot.

masklinn• 14 years ago

Tokens are per-application. So they do not have "a limit over 100k", they have a limit of 100k on "Tweetbot for Mac". Which is a completely separate limit than the one for Tweetbot on iOS.

eykanal• 14 years ago

There have been many discussions here on Hacker News about the risks inherent in building your product—and hence livelihood—on top of someone else's platform, over which you have no control. Unfortunately for Tweetbot, this sort of complaint will possibly strike a chord with the almost negligible minority that would read a tech blog, and of those, an even smaller and more negligible minority will actually complain to Twitter.

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.

n9com2• 14 years ago

welcome to the world of business.

zupreme2• 14 years ago

This, and other actions like it, are only going to drive more people to the underground bot/warez economy wherein terms of use and official API channels don't apply. unfortunately in that world many of the tools also compromise user security as well.

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.

taylonr2• 14 years ago

I doubt it. In fact, I think of the majority of the people I know if they were to try and download Tweetbot and couldn't, they'll be mad at Tweetbot.

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.

gavinlynch• 14 years ago

No they won't.

They'll just use the next most popular Twitter client for iOS, which is likely free or perhaps a buck or two.

comex3• 14 years ago

Except that there's no reason it has to be underground. For a long time, instant messaging services tried to block third party clients, but I've never heard of them trying to take legal action. The Twitter TOS claims that "you have to use the Twitter API if you want to reproduce, modify, create derivative works", but that's copyright language, and Twitter does not own the copyright to tweets; only individual tweeters would have standing to sue for copyright infringement (see the recent Craigslist controversy), and I'm not sure such a claim would be valid anyway. There's the CFAA, but... anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if Twitter made a first by suing the makers of an unofficial client. In the meantime, dunno if Apple would let it into the App Store, but they could freely sell their client from their home page.

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.

joelhooks• 14 years ago

They have several products. Sure, TweetBot has them more flush with cash than they would have been otherwise, but they are crafty and intelligent. So Twitter is strong arming one aspect of their business. I suspect TapBots will be OK.

utopkara2• 14 years ago

The limited number of tokens argument for inflated price doesn't make sense for standalone apps. It is very much possible that people get their own developer tokens from twitter. Perhaps, you could provide a lower price tier for such cases.

briandear2• 14 years ago

Developers aren't their target audience.

utopkara2• 14 years ago

You'll find plenty of them when you come to HN to talk about your product.

jusben1369• 14 years ago

Funnily enough I wonder if they would have gotten more flack if they had just auctioned off the 100,000 licenses and see what the market would handle? I suspect they may have gotten more than $20 each and there would be less complaining as it's a totally transparent process.

n9com2• 14 years ago

This probably makes more sense and they wouldn't have needed to give up a 30% cut to Apple.

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.

briandear2• 14 years ago

They could just raise the price to $1000 once they get close to the token limit.

kaisdavis• 14 years ago

That's incorrect. I believe I heard this via Cable on John Gruber's 'The Talk Show,' but you can still have an app in the MAS and provide updates even if the app is not available for sale.

toyg• 14 years ago

That's what I said in comments on the page -- they could have gone for a mix of eBay and Humble Indie Bundle: offer what you want, and the best 100.000 get in.

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.

smackfu• 14 years ago

Well, who knows how well the top grosser on the Mac App Store is really doing? It's not the iOS App Store. It seems to generally be dominated by Apple apps.

kmfrk• 14 years ago

Am I the only one smiling at seeing the equivalent of limited-edition software in the year 2012?

Twitter is weird.

negativity2• 14 years ago

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this is beyond absurd.

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.

negativity2• 14 years ago

Oh, wait. I'm sorry I was thinking about an even sillier premise:

"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.

deveac• 14 years ago

They say their plan is to both release it for profit and continue to support it, all under the constraint of a limited number of user tokens provided to them by Twitter.

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.

bbatsell• 14 years ago

Twitter does not allow the keyholder to revoke tokens; only individual users can do that. It would be impossible for Tapbots to reclaim unused/unpaid tokens. (Which is why they beg users of the alpha to dissociate Tweetbot in their control panel if they don't plan on buying the app.)

nicholassmith• 14 years ago

I really want to buy it, and I don't even mind $20 that much but given that they've got so few tokens I'm actually going to leave it for someone who uses Twitter on the desktop way more than I would. I think it's a reasonable price given the situation.

dfxm12• 14 years ago

Can you imagine if everyone felt the exact same way you do? I suggest you buy it if you really want to.

janaboruta• 14 years ago

I would happily pay $20 for Tweetbot. It's a great app: well designed, easy to use, intuitive.

danilocampos2• 14 years ago

Why is it $20?

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.

GavinB• 14 years ago

I interpreted this as largely a protest in the hopes of getting Twitter's token policy changed. It seems very odd that they can get 100,000 tokens for free but can't pay for more.

danilocampos2• 14 years ago

That's reasonable. And I agree it's odd. Why should Twitter care if 20% of their userbase is on third party clients with an experience that's not on-brand, if those clients pay a per-user fee?

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.

brown9-2• 14 years ago

I think it's likely that Twitter is willing to sell them more, but the price is too extreme for TapBots.

pdeuchler• 14 years ago

Could that be a viable source of revenue instead of advertisement?

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.

xiaoma2• 14 years ago

>"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."

I wish there were a way of identifying people like you online and charging more to capture some of that consumer surplus :)

jdminhbg• 14 years ago

Looks like there is a way: Make a great product and sell it for a premium price.

wmeredith• 14 years ago

Ah yes. It's always smart to punish your best customers. That's how you end up with Organizations like The Pirate Bay.

erode• 14 years ago

So you didn't objectively weigh the reasons it is worth your money, at all? You are the worst kind of user.

wissler• 14 years ago

Why is it $20? Because it's worth that much.

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.

bitcartel• 14 years ago

Once upon a time you didn't have to justify your pricing. Thanks App Store.

bsg75• 14 years ago

Why is the pricing of this an App Store issue?

I prefer Yorufukurou over over the other clients I have tried, and its free on the App Store or the developer's site.

jinushaun• 14 years ago

Because the App Store devalued the price of software. $0.99 was not normal before 2008. You can't build and maintain great software on $0.99.

unreal37• 14 years ago

I thought the 100,000 limit was just the limit for free tokens - "you have to talk to us". I mean, if Twitter is willing to sell tokens at $2 each, then Tapbot can sell this app forever giving Twitter their cut.

I also find it ironic that the app maker has to ask beta testers to revoke access to free up tokens for others.

notatoad• 14 years ago

>I thought the 100,000 limit was just the limit for free tokens - "you have to talk to us".

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.

paulsilver• 14 years ago

I'm interested to see that developers aren't trusting Twitter when they said if you got close to your token limit you'd be able to apply to them to raise the limit.

On reflection, given their recent behaviour as a company I can understand that.

jlmendezbonini2• 14 years ago

Quickly skimming through the comments turned to be somewhat informative. Note that some are partial quotes from larger comments.

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

ruswick4• 14 years ago

I don't think the "I'll pay anything" guys make valid points. Most people do not judge the reasonability of a price on the amount of work that is put into a product. (Nor should they.)

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.

jlmendezbonini2• 14 years ago

>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.

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 ;)

abbott• 14 years ago

Twitter does not want to provide the opportunity to empower 3rd parties to become so large that they have to acquire them.

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.

Why is Tweetbot for Mac $20?

Related Stories