scrivener is almost perfect as is...but

Scrivener is almost perfect as it is, but I DO have one small suggestion. I think the developer should charge more for his product. This may be the most unpopular suggestion in these forums, but I’ve read comments where Keith seems to be saying that selling Scrivener is barely profitable for him. That’s not right or reasonable.

Why not charge, say, $50 as a flat fee with no educational discounts. Or, if you don’t lilke round numbers, try $49. Scrivener is worth much more than that to me. It is unique, and it is uniquely useful. It’s also stable and incredibly well supported.

This is a selfish request on my part. I want Keith to be happy and profitable so that he will stay with this fine software and keep it going. For my sake.



I’d say if Keith goes higher, he should consider an educational discount; after all, I’m a student! :wink:

Seriously though, Keith, consider pricing out what price would be needed to make this your day job (well, software development anyway). Then again, I have no idea what your day job is, so perhaps it’s being the head reviewer of area pubs for the Guardian or somesuch. Under those conditions being a fulltime programmer seems rather suboptimal. :smiley:



I’m inclined to agree. I would have happily paid more because scrivener is a an absolutre pearl of an app.

That said, I think Keith has done well with the pricing. Anymore and it might make people stop and think…or worse look for a warez copy.

I also would have paid more. Have paid more, in fact, for other software which delivered less. No need, Keith, to make an increase retroactive, but do think about either a higher entry price, or a significant up-grade price. On the other hand, if you’re financially independent and do this only as a lark, why, the current price may be just about right.

(Or have we all failed to notice a devious underlying strategy: hook us all with an efficient, well-made, reasonably-priced product; encourage us to use it indiscriminately; and finally, zap us with an extortionate maintenance upgrade when the time-release sub-routine begins corrupting our files. I’ve wondered, a few times, if that wasn’t what kept MicroSoft going.)

I would have paid more as well.

On the other hand, keeping it low-priced encourages more widespread use. There are a ton of outlining software programs out there. None are as good as Scrivener, of course (!), but many people don’t know that yet. Keeping Scrivener low-priced keeps it competitive.


I WOULD’VE paid more, but chances are I probably couldn’t have. As it is someone else made the purchase for me and I paid them back later. But I’m beyond grateful to have full use of such a great tool.

But had it cost more, I more than likely would’ve just stuck with and suffered through with the programs I was previously fussing with, (unless for course one of those great holidays that always leave you with extra money rolls around). From the “About” page I feel like this was the kind of thing Keith was aiming to avoid, he wanted like minded people to have access to the same helpful tool that he more or less created for his own use, but also in fairness wanted some compensation for all his hard work. I don’t know the guy, so I really can’t say for certain, that’s just how it sounds to me.


there is an interesting experiment ( by a guy who runs a web service where the user determines the price – ‘tipping’ instead of paying. He says:

“By letting the users set the price, rather than setting it myself, I more than doubled my income. This is because I captured tips both from people who could not afford to pay what I thought was fair, as well as those who would willingly pay more. If you set a price for a service before the service is provided, you will only get income from those customers who were willing to pay that price (or higher); you don’t get any money from those who think your service is worth less than you do, and you lose extra income from those who would pay more.”
and later
“I believe that the reason for this is that the site is very personal in nature. Users understand they are not dealing with a faceless corporation, but with an actual person. It’s easy to rationalize stiffing MegaCorp, but much harder to screw the hard-working guy the top of whose head they can see on the webcam answering their emails [ … ]. Note that this means that the tipping model may be best suited for intellectual property whose authors are clearly definable individuals…”

This payment model seems to depend much on a psychological bond to the service or software. All the praise on this forum makes me wonder whether it wouldn’t work with Scrivener?


There’s a story in Freakonomics about a sandwich delivery company who started to use the honour system for payments rather than spend money on staff to extract money from their companies. They did well from it, but I think discovered there’s a scale factor involved: people don’t feel as guilty about ripping off a big company as they do about a small, human enterprise.