zvenx wrote:Can honestly say I don't see/read it as you do.
Unless maybe in my mind I was doing the same thing to you. Because when I read the three companies you mentioned, my first immediate thought was how do you know how successful they are? Based on KVR positive posts or ?
rsp
Urs' original theory - or shall I not rather say "claim"? - wasn't about business figures at all - let's have a look at it again:
"What people really want is an expensive plug-in for less money. A plug-in that's priced 200+ and bought for, say, 99 gets much more attention than a plug-in that is always priced 99. So the ideal plug-in is one that is priced very high and that's always on sale for half the price."
so most obviously, when I used the term "success", I did not necessarily refer to monetary success. I used the term a lot more loosely. However I used it adequately enough to counter Urs' claim, which is a complete sweeping generalization itself, free of any supporting data.
"What people really want" - sentences do not come broader than that.
My argument was of course, that if this was generally true, Valhalla etc. would not be rated/valued highly by "people" at all, because - following the logic of Urs' claim - "people" would consider a 50 dollar plugin signficantly less valuable as one which normally costs 100 bucks. Look around here, at Gearslutz and elsewhere: Valhalla, Klanghelm and Sknote get praised a lot by a lot of "people". So these "people" obviously value a plugin's quality independent of its price tag.
Urs' theory might of course apply to certain customers - I find it very believable - but that doesn't make is generally valid or applicable. To what percentage of potential customers Urs' "people" applies, of course none of us can say without conducting or reviewing respective market research. However it was Urs who stated an unproven generalization first - and then he tried to completely dismiss my counter-argument by claiming I would have to provide numbers first - which is what I called "having a cheek" - and I stand by it.