I have changed the price of our first product, CSV Manager from $97 to $47, for the entry level license. This was not an easy decision. No pricing decision ever is.
CSV Manager was launched in September 04, so I do have a lot of data on sales at the $97 price point. Enough to generate a reasonable estimate of the value of the demand curve at that point. But it really is a black art. I have decided that the information obtained by changing the price is more valuable than the possible loss of revenue.
But there is another factor. One of the drivers for starting a business is to solve problems for people. To "create value", to put it in marketroid-speak. So what is value? What is wealth, in fact? People are wealthier when they get more for less. In this century, we have indoor plumbing. Two hundred years ago, you had to be Queen Victoria if you wanted enamel. Another example: Virgin Galatic. Pretty soonish you'll be able to view the final frontier for less than the price of nice house. Space is quite a bit more accessible than it was in 1969. So providing value is just the same as creating wealth. More for less makes you money. The true purpose of a good business is to make its customers wealthier. That's what Henry Ford did with the Model T, that's what Skype is doing today. A good business makes money for its customers.
And the purpose of technology is to make stuff cheaper. A true technology company keeps lowering its prices. Year-in, Year-out. That's why Ricebridge prices will get lower each year.
So why is XML Manager priced at $97, the old, high price? Because it's a new product. It has to prove itself in the market. Once that happens, and sales ramp up, we turn on the wealth tap and make it cheaper.
You may be thinking, "this guy is nuts! He's throwing money away!" Maybe, but our code is there to be used. The more it is used, the more valuable it becomes. More users mean more squashed bugs, more FAQs, more feedback, more features, and so on. By the way, that's what makes Open Source work so well – many eyeballs. Well, we have to earn a living, so we can't Open Source our products, but we can approach Open Source, asymptotically. And in doing so, we end up with products that people want to use, not products that they are forced to use.
These ideas are similar to Jonathan Schwarz's thoughts on "Volume". Now he does go on a bit, but he's basically right. Giving people more power to get stuff done is the purpose of a tech company. (hey, Jonathan, where's my server? hope you're not just keeping them for the big boys. I have benchmarks too you know!)
So this is all nice and warm and fuzzy, especially for new customers – cheaper stuff, Yay! It's not so nice for existing loyal customers though. They get a wee bit annoyed, and rightly so, when stuff they just bought gets cheaper overnight. So here's a pledge: If you are an existing Ricebridge customer you will always get a nice big fat discount on new stuff. And even then, if you think you've been treated unfairly, just let us know, and we'll find even more free stuff for you.
Well, what do you think? Am I about to run my company into the ground?

















I don't agree about Open Source, though. I bet you've been thinking that someone should say something about it, and here I am.
Open Source does not mean free. You can make your source available to your clients - It doesn't have to be GPL'ed. Also, you can make your source available for view but not for use unless paid. Many would say, "Should I trust people not to take the code, compile and run it?" and I ask "Should I trust people not to copy the compiled software I worked hard to write and sell?"
Interested in your comments on this. :)
Posted by Aviad Ben Dov on December 22, 2005 at 06:47 PM GMT+00:00
Website: http://javachaos.blogspot.com/ #
But I try to provide the products with as many open-source qualities as possible. For example, I make about 20% of the code available under a BSD license - this helps understanding and is a great form of documentation. The price reduction over time is also meant to approach "free". Finally the product site provides all the usual Open-Source style supports: FAQs, forums, bug-tracking, etc.
My licenses also operate on a trust basis. So if you buy a single dev license and more than one developer uses it, technically you have broken the license. But in reality a little bit of leeway is actually better for everybody.
I do also sell the source. But again, this is a transaction. The philosophy is that you will get help if there are problems, rather than being left to figure it out yourself.
So you might have to put some money on the table, but you basically get all the benefits of open source.
The best way to combat unlicensed copying is to create a great product - people *want* to pay for good products, it's human nature. If there are 10% who don't play by the rules, so be it. The other 90% are great customers and I want to make life easy for them.
Posted by Richard Rodger on December 22, 2005 at 08:53 PM GMT+00:00
Website: http://www.ricebridge.com #
I agree with you on everything you said. I have a few things I work on myself, some of them I'll open source and as you said - If people will pay, they will pay for the support and better documentation. I believe this is the "open source way" to create wealth - For both the developer and the users.
Posted by Aviad Ben Dov on December 22, 2005 at 08:58 PM GMT+00:00
Website: http://javachaos.blogspot.com/ #