The oddities of pricing simplicity

Posted by Fred Oliveira on June 23, 2010 | Comments (13)

37signals just launched a digital sketching application for the iPad. The hat is off to them: it seems interesting enough, and it is interesting to see them step away from the web and dabble into different platforms. This post isn’t about their app, however, but about something I just read on the comments to its release. The user Gregg posts, chiming about the app’s $9.99 price tag (emphasis mine):

I don’t think $9.99 is too expensive. What you’re paying for is the Campfire integration and the judicious removal of features. How soon do you think this app will pay for itself if you consider the cost of your time involved in drawing, scanning and emailing a sketch?

There’s a lot of food for thought in that comment. $9.99 for the judicious removal of features. Is doing less actually worth more? The guys at 37signals have long been advocates for doing less than the competition[1], but actually seeing a client put a value on the lack of features is interesting. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it, as I wrap my head around the idea and think about it myself.

[1] Disclosure: in my day job I do belong to the competition, even though we serve somewhat different audiences, with slightly different needs.

Comments on this post

Pretty well know stuff/strategy for innovation and product delivery:

- http://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/abo/strategy_canvas.html
- http://thesquigglyline.com/blog/innovation/blue-oceans-for-dummies/
- http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/2009/12/innovation-by-subtraction.html

– MV

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said that “perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away” implying that over-saturation in fact acts against the point one is trying to get across, be it through any media. And much more than the very well known “less is more” of Mies van der Rohe, it protects itself from a bare minimalism which more often than not crosses that invisible threshold of minimum content toward a “less is less” paradigm.

If we take as true the adage “time is money”, then there is value not only in the time spared by the use of digital tech over conventional tech, but also in the ease of use translated in the removal of all features that, albeit making an app more complete, become somewhat ornamental or flavour-ish and less of a core portion of the product.

The less the menu-navigation needed, the quicker you finish the work, or at least the more efficient you become spending the most time in actual work and not in “metas”, while trying to make the product do what you need.

I think that when you remove features you gain in design cleanness, simplicity, etc and straight way your product changes. Hence it gets another value.

Could that increase the value? Why not? Having less also means having less to think about, less stress, less time searching for the feature you want, less mess, etc. I value that :)

MV: sorry about the late approval, I didn’t notice your comment on the moderation queue. Naturally I know about Blue Ocean Strategy. It doesn’t necessarily mean cutting features, however – it means finding holes in the strategy/position/market where others are playing and filling those gaps (zig where others zag).

My point with the post is that it is odd, new and fresh to see people actually value (with real money, not just as an idea) the lack instead of addition of features.

I get the idea of “simple”. I get the idea of “under-doing the competition”. I get the idea of perfection being “nothing more to remove”. I get and I subscribe to those lines of thought.
What I don’t get is charging a “premium” for not implementing features. They’re free to release a simple product, but they have to price it according to the market. That app is hardly worth $9.99 considering other alternative apps (without Campfire integration).

The deal is they are trying to up the price to avoid “cheap pricing”, which was never a category 37s fit in. From that perspective, I get the price. And I don’t get people that start comparing prices of apps to “lattes” and what not. Compare it with comparable things: other apps.

IMO, price needs to be calculated by “time * skill * cost”. I saw this on Twitter today: “37 signals releases MS Paint for the iPad… will probably sell millions” [rel: http://rad.st/bkuVfP. Paint was never considered an example in simplicity but they always kept most features out. Were they doing it right? Maybe Microsoft should’ve been selling Paint on the side and charging the same price as Adobe charged for Photoshop… right?

Never mind what I said above. Draft is already selling more than Brushes (best drawing app EVER IMO).

For example: Apple charges high prices, but I feel I’m getting top quality gear. They don’t have *less* features. They’re just nicely implemented, and in better quality and detail. Software is different. Apple charges LESS than most of their competitors. That’s the beauty of “doing less”. Cheaper != worse quality. And on that particular point, I don’t agree with 37signals and their stance (I agree with most everything else). But kudos to them for being able to disrupt a market and outsell their competition… I guess… :S

>It doesn’t necessarily mean cutting features, however – it means finding holes in the >strategy/position/market where others are playing and filling those gaps
>

Beg to disagree… :-) If you try to fill gaps in the competition’s strategy/products, you’re riding into the red ocean :-)

You use the strategy canvas to deliberatly *create* holes and discard some of the features/characteristics of the competition so that you can focus on being good at just one or two. When you do this (create holes) you necessarily use innovation-by-subtraction (cutting features). And you probably create a cheaper product. But that product addresses a market that wasnt using any of the current products because of price and/or complexity. And potentially, when you address a larger non-consumer market, with a smaller price, although with less performance/complexity, you might just have a disruptive innovation in your hands.

So, to sum up: you’re wrong :-) A blue-ocean-stragegy is all about cutting features.

— MV

@ Levi

What about iPad itself? No Flash, no USB, etc, etc, etc… It HAS less features than other similar products and, if memory serves, it is more expensive while people still buy it as a new product wonder.

@Nuno

You’re going back to hardware… I’m okay with premium price for high quality hardware, even if with “less” features but better build quality and *especially* better software.
Software pricing is (should be?) a little different. The R&I put into the iPad are insane and that explains a higher price but also the MUCH better user experience.

In the case of Draft, its UI doesn’t even compare to Brushes… And Brushes is cheaper *and* better. The only thing it doesn’t do is tie with Campfire, but like 37s said they want Draft to be a “case study” so more developers tie in to Campfire’s API in their apps. $10 is pretty steep for a case study, no?

I’m just sorry for all the “buyer’s remorse” most buyers will get when cheaper apps, with better UIs tie in with Campfire thus removing Draft’s only advantage (well, simplicity is an advantage as well but easy replicable in this case IMO).

@Levi

I get what you mean, but I am not sure soft are hard have to be analysed from so different stand points. Nor am I saying it is a sure thing, obviously more than complexity or simplicity, higher quality is of course the best approach and is not tied to any of the other two.

My bottom line is: in my experience as a user the apps/programs that have failed the most are the ones that build upon complexity, most people just want simple apps for simple tasks, anything else that the devs add is only in the way.

Like you imply: it is mainly about the best user experience.

Maybe buyers don’t think of it as “paying for fewer features.” Maybe it’s more about paying for an app I can figure out and start using in about 40 seconds. An app that doesn’t make me feel stupid.

Simplicity doesn’t necessary means less features. What it means is a lof of effort in order to simplify user interaction, and that deserves a premium. Think for instance in Apple’s remote control, and compare it with other remotes. Or the iPod and compare it with other MP3 players in the market. Both are a lot easier to use, having the same number of features. So, designer had to work a lot in order to achieve it.

If you’re interested in the subject, I advise you to read John Maeda’s book, The laws of simplicity. Great book, lots of valuable insights.

João: of course you can argue that they might not have removed anything, or actually attempted to simplify any interaction. If all I do is draw a line, that doesn’t mean I wanted to draw a square but decided to keep things simple. That is the paradox I’m alluding to. Your comment still makes sense, but not necessarily in this context ;-)

Regarding Maeda, here’s a hint at something I have been working on every few months (sort of like a project that I never seem to have the time to complete – even though I have the first 2 laws done, because I posted them on the WBS blog 3 years ago). I’ve had a few long conversations with Maeda about the paradox of mindful reduction when applied to web apps, which while obviously off-topic here, might be in a future post.

Add your comment

All design and content © Fred Oliveira 2007-2012, unless otherwise specified.