Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Yes, I believe the feedback they got was that they should be charging. Maybe because it confirms my personal perspective that I think they should be charging already indeed.


sort by: page size:

yes, people have been saying they should "charge more" for over a decade

I mean they should charge more.

Are you arguing they are charging too much or they shouldn't be charged at all?

What should they charge for then?

I thought "charge more" is a good thing? /s

I'm not sure what your point is. Should they not charge anything?

At the prices they're charging, they're rather asking for it.

It was less a projected charging plan and more a statement concerning the complicated nature of value. There's a contradiction in that no man's effort can be perfectly measured. Consider historic visionaries, a great many years after their life has ended, society finds great value in their creations and ideas. It's a tough thing for us to judge somethings price (we estimate what it's worth to us at least).

(My response to a comment from Dave) I admit there is a split between emotional and monetary value. Maybe we have to do more than just put a price tag on our time, we need to charge an amount that "pays the bills" or provides for a sustainable business but understand that the ultimate value of our service may not be tightly coupled to the fee we charge.


Then those charges should also be labeled as such to customers.

If this is true, they should charge more.

My initial reaction was that it sounds as if they're not charging nearly enough. You may want to be picky but that's ridiculous. But you may be right.

Since we're adding arbitrary tidbits of info to receipts...

Certainly seems more informative than how much the charging cost.


You quote them as saying “charge more”, but I don’t see them say that. Did they edit their comment while/after you responded?

It's hard to know how the company would respond, or what the ideal charge would be.

What I do know is that I completely respect snarf21's choice to either charge or not as they see fit.


I thought the article was just trying to make a point about charging based on how much work it takes vs charging what people will pay.

I remember Patio11 (Patrick McKenzie) made similar claim on this: charge the customer, and in fact, don't afraid to charge more. If my memory is right he talked about this in a conference, but too bad I don't have the link handy. If any of you can share, it will be great.

> Of course a $15 charge is city planning.

In the same way returning a 429 is handling high usage of your service.


If they could charge more, they'd already be charging more.

They aren't suggesting they'll charge appreciably more; they are suggesting they'll charge the same in different ways.
next

Legal | privacy