I'd disagree with their methodology. So, every Windows Mobile user who has downloaded Opera Mini to try it is considered an active Opera Mini user? Hogwash! Opera Mini has been downloaded 21M times which includes a substantial proportion of people who have downloaded it multiple times and users who have downloaded it to try it and never use it again.
I concur, as a Windows Mobile user (Blackjack II) I downloaded Opera to 'try' and use it occasionally on websites which I know render correctly/better than mobile IE. However much of the web is not Opera Mini compat, and it tends to freeze/screw up quite frequently which forces me back into the mobile IE ghetto.
However it's worth noting that I just installed Skyfire is it's working beautifully.
Shows web pages like a desktop browser (no one-column BS), has Opera/Safari-esque zooming features and plays web video (YouTube/ESPN) with no fuss. Lovin' it.
* I greatly appreciate that the 30-day trial doesn't require a credit card. Bravo! Finally someone gets that right.
* Why do you start at 3 brands? I'm guessing that there are enough users that would like to monitor a single brand maybe for $12-$14/mo?
* The plan pricing isn't good. The Big Shot plan costs $100 for 10 brands/users while the Blogger plan costs $19 for 3 brands/users. Why shouldn't I just get 4 Blogger plans? Clearly the convenience of not having to deal with multiple accounts and who can access what where, but it just doesn't look like you're getting the value you should be getting. As 37s said about their pricing "Each tier is roughly double the previous tier, but we deliver more than double the benefits." (http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1287-ask-37signals-how-di...).
Overall, it looks like a great way for companies to track their brands online and see how things are going. I'd say you could easily create a sustainable business model out of that.
"I greatly appreciate that the 30-day trial doesn't require a credit card. Bravo! Finally someone gets that right."
I'm torn between this. On the one hand, it's less friction for the user to sign up... but then you wind up bugging the user later on. I feel like it's better to just get all of the "administrative non-sense" out of the way at the start. Also, if they're willing to give you their credit card (even if you aren't charging it right away), I suspect the data would show that they're more willing to pay for it later. I've got no data to back that statement though. Does anyone have any experience with this to share?
Don't be torn. You never would have had me even try your service if you asked for a credit card. I suspect its the same for most people.
Getting a credit card later is proof that you have made an invaluable tool that people just didn't forget to cancel, and should make it easier for you to adjust your service until you hit the sweetspot and become a must have.
I understand what you're saying, but I think most people feel (correctly) like companies who ask for the credit card info up-front are banking on people just being too lazy or forgetful to cancel. While that might result in some decent short-term cashflow, we don't feel that it's a smart move long-term, as that's not really the kind of relationship we want to have with our customers.
One reason I think it should be required is to do vetting up front. That is, say you are offering something ISP/colo-like through your SaaS, something along the lines of a web proxy service. Not good to have people on free trials doing illegal things and having no way to identify them.
I understand credit cards are not great vetting but it's better than nothing in these situations. I wish there were a way around this (which is mostly why I'm posting this comment, perhaps someone can relieve me of any ignorance).
"Fax me a copy of your license" is out of the question ... the only thing I've come up with is to have a pretty crippled free demo that at least gets you a chance to see half of it in action.
There is a large company I used to work for that we all use everyday and most of their services are free, but before I left they were discussing using credit cards as a means to defend against abuse in a free service. (The specific service being discussed hasn't been released yet) While it would cut back greatly on abuse, it'd probably significantly reduce adoption. I was always against the move... but in the start up I'm working on now, I feel it'd be more convenient for both sides to just take care of the credit card stuff up front. The big difference, to me at least, is that what I'm working on is a paid service.
The motivation behind requiring a credit card for free trials is that many people forget, or can't be bothered, to cancel before they start getting charged.
I personally hate being asked for a credit card for a trial because I know the company is hoping that I won't cancel in time and that they get to charge me. If your product is good, I'll be on board. If it isn't, I don't want to go through administrative hassle (especially since many sites make it difficult to cancel - sometimes even requiring phone calls).
Your points are excellent ones, and we'll definitely consider adjusting our pricing model and perhaps adding a solo plan that allows a single user to track a single brand.
Thanks again for your feedback. It's always nice to hear that someone "gets" what you're trying to do :)
And it's only recently with the rise of virtualization that we have any options besides cheap shared hosting and horrifically expensive dedicated server/colo.
lol! I remember being called all sorts of things in the 70s. But now it's my turn! Damn kids! Get off my lawn! The fun part is you'll get to do it to the next generation.
Banks can make money by exploiting market inefficiency but banks also create real value. A loan to start a business creates value if the business works.
By the same logic he kept the market in check so that it wouldn't implode catastrophically, therefore allowing banks to exist and continue their business giving loans to start a business.
The market probably wouldn't have imploded one way or another; just that if it was more stable, the risky earnings would either be smaller, or take longer to materialize. (as before, I'm treading in a sea of assumptions)
But once the market does calm down again, there will be a new Paulson. Perhaps the day this is ever fully prevented is the day that humans become permanently immune to all possible diseases.
Surely; but suppose Paulson didn't do what he did. The capital that didn't go into his fund would have gone into other instruments that produce effects elsewhere (ultimately ending up in some conversion to value somewhere in the chain, big or small). The money made from these other instruments will be used for X purpose. The money lost is simply lost.
Paulson simply sped up the reaction. At the cost of the happiness of others, maybe, but it was still a market inefficiency. There could have been 1000 mini-Paulsons, each making 1000x less, but the net effect, as far as the market is concerned, is the same. It's just very indirect and detached from noble intent (but who knows).
You cannot consider happiness as part of the equation. People were happy enough to sell financial instruments to Paulson at a profit. Now they are sad because they lost money in that transaction... Why all the complain? Everyone should just learn a lesson in investment from this situation.
If the wealth gain was less sudden, i.e. if it was less conspicuous, people wouldn't complain as much. So the speed is definitely related to the happiness of others, because it's a relative, societal judgment. Furthermore, the one complaining here (the article) was, I believe, a bystander. It's more a reflection on income disparity than quality of life.
Crappy that they didn't respond to your ticket, but it shows the resilience of the open source model. You have the tools needed to fix and improve things yourself and then give it back to help others. No reliance on a vendor's timetable.
