Bugged, very slow, still no adobe stock support - i'm out too

Don't understand why people keep comparing the price of this niche app and the price of Adobe PS+LR subscription (with huge user base), but not with competitive niche products like StockPerformer and MicrostockAnalytics.

Excellent software, been using it for a year, fast bug fixes, fast help response. Sadly I must part, too much for a hobby but I'll gladly return if I up the game.

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

The problem is not that the price of the software is too high, the problem is that microstock just produces so little revenue nowadays that is it hard to justify any expense!

Like someone already said, if you can't afford $5 for it then you most likely don't need it.

It is a niche software, you have alternatives as stock performer, microstock analytics and your excel spreadsheets, so it is pointless to compare it with Photoshop an so on.

Quote from: Chichikov

Even a product like Affinity Photo....

3d max is 185 a month, Premier Pro is 20 a month or 50 for the all-in pack should I continue? do you know audio software prices? - Huge! And I use/used many different apps for my microstock production. But does it make any sense to compare all those products? You are saying that this mango is pricy and potato is cheaper and indispensable for most of us.

Quote from: Chichikov on September 12, 2017, 03:34

Quote from: grumble on September 12, 2017, 03:26

Don't understand why people keep comparing the price of this niche app and the price of Adobe PS+LR subscription (with huge user base), but not with competitive niche products like StockPerformer and MicrostockAnalytics.

Maybe because PS+LR are almost indispensable for most of us, when Microstockr is not?

Again. It is niche product only for microstock contributors. Do you use StockSubmitter? Or StockPerformer ( �29/month) and MicrostockAnalytics ($39.99/3 months)? You either need those products or not. Not defending anything, and agree that beta users could get better discounts. But we should compare comparable products.
And I would like the discussion heading the direction of price/features comparison with direct competition (may be in the new dedicated topic) not any software in the world.

It is a product that can surely be a plus to report our earnings (and other) in a nice, simple and efficient way, but what more else?

And okay, it is a niche product, I totally agree with this.
But at this price, and you can see it here, a lot of potential users just became "not users at all"�
Is it better to get 100 users for $100 a year, or 500 users for $25 / $30 a year?

In fact the great question is "how much users Microstockr has?"
I am sure that the Microstockr developers have already made their sums and taken their decision accordingly.
As I (and other here) have done.

There should be some "trial" version of such software, with only agency balances and history. Everything else is more specific for some pple that analyse data to shoot new sets.

My respect for the authors and what they have done, but I cannot accept to pay for Photoshop+Lightroom - $12/month but for Microstockr Pro - $8.49/month! I think it's not adequate price!

I am out!

I'm also out!
Way too expensive for just the curiosity of checking some stats!

I've been using this for almost two years, submitted some bug reports and some feature suggestions.

I have to say I've had very few problems with it. I really like it (apart from the lack of a decent scroll bar).

I was ALMOST expecting long term beta users to be able to continue using it for free, and definitely expecting a discount, thinking maybe $1.99/month max. But $6 a month is around about 5% of my monthly take, which I think is a lot for something which doesn't aid productivity that much.

For that reason, with regret, I'm also out. Shame.

I'm using Stockperformer for 7.5 Euro per month (basic subscription). Since it's the cheaper subscription plan, not allowing e.g. to create collections and seeing some other insight data, I was using Microstockr Pro as a supplement. Now that MS Pro became subscription-based (which in principle is absolutely natural), I don't see myself paying for it the full price (6.79 USD with discount, or 7.99 without) just to have the ability to create collections and Match All features. Other than that Stockperformer, for its basic subscription fee, has all the features of MS Pro. I guess the owners of MS Pro could have thought about that scenario, i.e. that Stockperformer subscribers might want to keep MS Pro for extra features, but definitely at a lower cost.

Hey guys,

First of all, thank you for everyone who has been a Beta user. It is probably our fault for not communicating our appreciation of them well enough, maybe through a bigger discount. Lesson learned.

We wanted to make a few mentions, maybe to clarify things a bit.

1. The market for microstock photography is comprised of thousands of contributors out of which only a fraction are willing to pay for a software helping with sales tracking. This means there's a cap to the number of subscribers we'll probably have and a certain price we cannot go below for this project to be worthwhile. We have thought about the prices long and hard for over 2 years. We have even contacted a few marketing and pricing specialists so we'd have an amount that's affordable to as many people as possible. This is very close to as low as we can go, to support us the creators of this software and the infrastructure/hardware needed. Developing this requires expert level design and IT skills and A LOT of time. None of which comes cheaply. But we are stock photographers ourselves and this product is our baby.

2. Microstockr Pro is definitely a niche product. Since the market is so small, no big company will enter and develop such an app because it is not worth it. Hence, comparing our app to Photoshop and Lightroom which have a mainstream market of millions of users is not really fair. Adobe does not have any competition and can charge whatever they want. The reason, we think, they charge $9.99 for Photoshop & Lightroom is because a lot of people would use their software illegally anyway, so why not grab a piece of that market too? They can afford it and it's a smart move.

Not many people remember that only a couple of years ago Photoshop cost $699 and you also had to pay a few hundred dollars for every update.

Comparing this to Microstockr Pro is like comparing apples and oranges. What if Adobe decided to charge $4.99 instead? Following that logic no other product should be more expensive since it's not more complex. It is called dumping price and is used by dominant players to control the market.

3. The agencies change all the time. Our app will never be a finished product because it will always require updates and adjustments. Hence development will never cease. In order to support it, we needed a subscription based model and a steady income to support it. Otherwise, we would've charged once and considering the market is small, when the cash ran out development ceased. So, in a way, subscription was the only way to go.

Hope this perspective clears things up a bit and helps others see things from our side too.
Cheers.

I have taken up a sub. My view is that it is a tad on the pricey side but I've enjoyed seeing it develop (for free) through its Beta phase and I enjoy using it - I like the elegant design and it actually saves me time looking at individual stock sites so there is some value there too. It is being updated/improved all the time so I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes over the next few months.

With its pricing it is a bit of a luxury but one I feel is a) worth doing to make my day better and b) happy to support an interesting project in development.

I'm unsure if my sub includes use of the mobile version too, I would think that would be fair to include as well.

There is still a problem with figures. The three agencies I have noticed are Shutterstock, Bigstock and iStock. Look at the number of downloads and Microstockr has fewer recorded. I haven't checked any other agencies.