Existing users, 
It seems that these recent attempts at a limited function widget IDE are all overpriced. MUCH more complex IDEs (NetBeans comes to mind, weighing in at over 77MB) are free in the Open Source arena.
If your "product" proves to be the best widget IDE, wouldn't you want to have 5 times as many users praising your efforts because you charged a token fee of $3 instead of the current $15-17? Or who knows how many users if you didn't charge anything, but accepted donations (some of the *greatest* names in Mac add-on software have always done this, and that's how they became the greatest)?
If I had to spend $16.50 per tool for each extendable feature of Mac OS X I'd go broke. AppleScript, Automator and Widgets to name a few ... that adds up really fast. Something that I use every day like a browser, text processor, terminal program, FTP client, etc. are worth more than an (IDE) editor for Widgets and I get those all for free. So why charge for your tool that would get occasional, but appreciated use from a relatively small community of potential users?
Is it "fame" from happy users or the money you're after? You've already said that you did this tool because you wanted it for yourself. Sharing it with others doesn't require that you make it seem like such expensive shareware.
/Marty
Widget Maker X
create, modify & manage widgets
Version: 1.3.4
limited function IDE is too expensive
Feedback Type: Commentary
Contributed by: Marty.Skinner Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 09:07 AM PDT
Product Platform: MacOSX
Used Product For: Have Not Tried
Comments
limited function IDE is too expensive - MyMac8MyPC
I've got to agree with the original poster, keeping the price down helps you and us. A simple example would be a baker who sells 100 loaves of bread at $3, or just a few loaves at $15.00. It's the same principle. I'm not sure if you've ever taken a collage class on business management or not, but they teach you to keep you eyes on the goal, and not how you 'think' you should get there. If making money is your goal, then you'll make ten times as much by selling for $5 then you will at $10-15. If you truly want to be 'compensated' for your time, then selling the most amount of units is the best way to do it. Like most people if I'm not going to use a product every day, I probably won't spend very much for it. It's just too easy to click that mouse and look for the next product down the line. You'll close more sales by keeping the price low, plus you'll be taking sales away from your competitors because people interested in their product will buy your product instead of theirs, simply because of the low price. Many products have become number one in their field by doing it that way. Just a thought.Tuesday, February 28 2006 @ 04:53 PM PST
limited function IDE is too expensive - Luke_Jackson_879
Marty,Any time I release a program that is going to take too much bandwidth or time, I release it as shareware. It is just to compensate for my time and bandwidth. I, like everyone else, am busy with a family (3 small children and wife), a day job, and working on finishing my MBA. Working on Widget Maker took development time from my other programs, which I do make money off. I am sure that if you spent enough time at something you also would like to be compensated for it. I will put some thought into the price as a result of your comments. For all my my programs you can try them before you buy them (and I would rather that people do try before buying).
NetBeans was developed by Sun to support a technology of theirs, I am no where near as big as Sun. Open Source is good, but does not seem to happen for small scale projects like this.
Widget Maker is meant to make the process of making widgets easier. Also please remember that it is still version 1.
One problem I have had with Widget Maker is getting feedback. The thing that I fear is people want to play with widgets, but don't really use them. I know that was one of the reasons that I made widget maker is to allow people to make more use of what they have. For those that just want to play, the trial period is enough for them.
Reply to This
Thursday, August 11 2005 @ 05:51 PM PDT