Well, Im not on the core team but if it's worth a grand, and somebody needs it, give it a go. Maybe someone will pay $1000 for it.

Steve

I think it depends on what you are talking about imo.

I think you put it up there for whatever you want.

If people don't like it...they can develop their own then!

:-)

C

I am on the core team and I couldn't agree more with skote. I look at Snowcovered, the dotNetNuke marketplace and I see all sorts of add-ons that are $500-900+ a shot:
http://www.snowcovered.com/Snowcovered2/Default.aspx?tabid=295&...

I remember spending $8k on a digital asset management system in ColdFusion back in 2003, believe it or not...I just did a quick search and found a chat engine for $2,500 for coldFusion:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=extensionDeta...

I certainly think we want to be careful about selling over priced trash, but I also think pricing so far has been geared towards freelance developers and non-profits who are frankly annoyed that everything isn't free in the first place. If we started having some more robust add-ons available geared towards the business market, we might find benefits across the board. (more adoption, bigger projects in the jobs area, etc)

For what it's worth, this may be one of the first times someone has had the balls to post this in the forums, but I routinely hear this observation when presenting concrete5 to prospective clients or agencies. The add-on prices are so low they are basically an annoyance to this type of customer. Generally that's a bad way to sell something, you're looking to make someone happy about their investment.. the whole "well gee it's only a buck!" argument is a great way to get ignored.

> The add-on prices are so low they are basically
> an annoyance to this type of customer.

You mention "type of customer." Just curious if you have any demographic data on the breakdown of the various "types" of C5 customers (beyond simply the total number of marketplace subscribers).

-Steve

sadly nothing statistical.

I can tell you there's a good mix of:
o... developers who are saving time/learning from others.
o... mid sized companies that are building extranets under the guidance of project managers who have a decent idea of how everything works, but don't touch PHP.
o... DIY site owners that run the range from "whats CSS?" to budding production developers... lots of personal projects, churches, small biz, etc.. these are the ones most heavily represented in our showcase.

I don't have numbers, because I dunno how to capture that data beyond hands on interaction around support. I also know that the showcase skews towards the smaller sites because there's more incentive for the smaller guys to post there.

Hi Scott,

I've seen paid add-ons in the marketplace ranging in price from $15 to $250. Obviously, the "value" of an add-on depends on a variety of factors - among them, the functionality it provides, the needs it addresses, the audience it targets, as well as the budget of the customer (or prospective customer). If you're creating unique solutions that appeal to C5 users (be they corporations, municipalities, whatever) who can afford to compensate you for your efforts, then it would likely be worth your while to offer your wares in the marketplace.

I don't see the disparity between the current average price of an add-on and what you'd like to charge as necessarily reflecting a disparity in value. My suggestion would be to conduct an experiment. Pick one of your 21 blocks which you think would have broad appeal, package it up, and give it a go. Who knows, maybe you'll raise the bar for all of us, and that could only be a good thing.

-Steve

I don't think there should be a standard price for all all addons. Some take more time to develop than others, and some are geared towards different problems than others. I think in general, the more "niche-y" the addon, the higher the price can be -- for example, the dealer locator or the domain mapper (which are both over $100).

You should definitely package some of those up and charge what you think is a fair price, and make sure you explain in the description WHY it's worth that (not out of defensiveness, but because every business -- online and offline -- has to explain their product's value proposition in the face of cheaper alternatives).

If you're charging $500 for an image gallery, then yes people are going to complain and nobody will buy it. But if you're charging $500 for an industry-specific thing that will be directly responsible for revenue generation, then the people who are cheapskates won't have a need for it so they won't pay any attention, whereas the people that do have a need for it will be able to clearly see why it's worth the money (assuming it is worth the money, of course).

If you feel like giving a brief description of one or two of your packages, you will probably get some good feedback here about if it makes sense at a certain price.

-Jordan

> I don't think there should be a standard price for all all addons
But see, that’s what I’m saying. There already IS a standard price for add-ons. Not by decree, but by convention. And the current standard price is, frankly, way too low.

For instance, if I introduce a news app and charge $1,000 for it, it will be compared to the existing news apps, which are currently being priced at $55 or less. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that mine is better. OK, great. But is it 20x better?! Probably not. But these kinds of comparisons will undoubtedly be made.

Instead, the current news apps should be priced a lot higher. So someone might compare, for instance, an $800 news app and a $1,000 news app. Is there a $200 difference? Maybe. Am I willing to pay for it? Maybe.



> Some take more time to develop than others
Right. And the current standard is: if it’s quick, charge $25. If it takes a long time, charge $100. But that’s completely unrealistic for a developer who targets larger businesses. In a world where hourly development rates run $80-$150, this kind of pricing is a joke, and creates the appearance that the add-ons are junk. I’m not saying they ARE junk, only that their prices convey that idea.

Take this into a different realm by way of comparison. Besides programming, I also do graphic design / branding work. Last year I charged $7,000 for a logo. This is very reasonable given the market, and the client was very happy with the end result. Yet if the client had gone to a place like eLance.com, I’m certain there would have been a hundred hapless graphic designers willing to do the job for $100. So why didn’t the client go there and save most of his money? Because the perception is that “no self-respecting graphic designer who’s any good would charge that little.” “You get what you pay for.” “There’s a reason it’s that cheap.” and so on.



> and make sure you explain in the description WHY it's worth that
I don’t think there’s any good way to do that when all of the competition is severely underpriced. It would come across as defensive, perhaps even arrogant. “Who does this guy think he is anyway?!” If I have to defend a 2000% price difference between news modules, I’m not going to even try. I’ve lost before I started.


Are there other developers here who share my perspective, or am I mostly alone in this?

Just a thought...

Aside from the market insights Franz has shared (which are encouraging), it seems we just don't know a whole lot about the market to which we'd be selling; and that seems to me to be key. And even if all of a sudden there was a consensus among developers that everything was underpriced, I just don't see how an "across the board" price hike would actually work.

Therefore, I'm wondering if it's worth considering establishing a separate "enterprise" marketplace (or some such) for add-ons which cater specifically to business. I have no idea exactly what that would mean or what kind of special criteria such a marketplace submission would have to meet; I'm just tossing out an idea for the community to consider. Maybe it's not a separate marketplace, but a separate "class" of add-ons deemed "enterprise worthy" and indicated with a special "badge" or something in the marketplace. Again, I don't know exactly what that would mean, but perhaps it's worth discussing. Maybe it's not even anything different about the add-on itself, but rather a special "enterprise" license based on whether the site using the add-on is personal or corporate.

Thoughts anyone?

-Steve

What you are talking about is real value vs perceived value. And frankly, I think the software industry over charges. I've been writing software both desktop and web, for over 13 years. Sometimes I charged outrageous prices, and sometimes I gave it away for free.

It really comes down to the level of engineering in that product, the amount of time it takes to create it, and the amount of support available after it has been created. When it comes down to commercial applications, usually the biggest influencer on the end price is the level of support available. Take SugarCRM or Magento for example. You have a free version of their software that doesn't have all the cutting edge enterprise level tools, and little to no support. And then you have their enterprise level software that has all the bells and whistles and tons of support (phone, email, etc). Right now the imbalance, imho, in the c5 marketplace lies in how support is first assumed, and then provided. Also when you create something custom for a client they are paying for the development of it, which inflates the cost. If you sell something that is already developed to someone in a marketplace, they are paying for the right of use and future support.

One must also consider the available audience. The c5 community is mostly comprised of individuals or teams that are trying to cut costs by using a free open source solution or are used to using free software and probably advocates of the FSF. To then have to pay for a $2000 News system is ridiculous and would scare people away. Why? Because that same person can go with a less effective, but cheaper system that has the same, or more, Addons but are free.

Now if you are actually writing some enterprise level software that would only even appeal to the enterprise business, like a CRM with integrated helpdesk, analytics, and HR management tools designed to help mange an organisation of 500+ employees, then yes, $2000 or more would be absolutely reasonable.

There is a reason why nickel-n-dime apps are blowing up in the XBL, iPhone,and Android Marketplaces. Same goes for Freemium services like Evernote, Freshbooks, etc. They are more easily accessible to a broader audience. Which is why I am a fan of SaaS.

But don't let me discourage you. If you want to sell a News management tool for $2000 go for it, but be prepared to sell very little.

If I may jump back into the fray...

I agree tech support is a major portion of the cost of software development. So let’s run with that.... The core team has stipulated that a developer has to provide 30 days of tech support for any sale of an item in the marketplace. THAT ALONE SHOULD JACK UP THE PRICE CONSIDERABLY compared to where it is right now.

For example, let’s say that, on average, for each sale of a module I can expect 30 minutes of email reading / writing. This is probably low given the type of questions I’m likely to receive (“I don’t know much about CSS, but how do I style this button?”). There’s $50 of my time (at my normal hourly rate) off the bat. If I sold that module for $55 in the marketplace, I’m really only seeing $41.25 after the core team takes their cut. Already, I’m $8.75 in the hole compared to if I had invested my time elsewhere. I won’t see any earnings for the effort to originally develop the module or to package it up for sale in the marketplace. So why would I give my time to this?


> One must also consider the available audience. The c5 community
> is mostly comprised of individuals or teams that are trying to cut
> costs by using a free open source solution or are used to using free
> software and probably advocates of the FSF.
If this is the core audience developers are targeting in the marketplace, then the prices will forever stay low; developers like me will then be dissuaded from developing good add-ons because there’s no incentive; and the CMS will be perceived as a toy, and generally passed over by the business community.

I came to the concrete5 platform after investigating a lot of other, often more popular, solutions out there. I finally landed here because I think the core functionality of concrete5 stands head and shoulders above the rest. But from day one, my feeling has been that the lack of add-ons is c5’s biggest weakness. All of us, I’m sure, would like to see more quality add-ons in the marketplace. And that’s really what I see this thread as being about. What incentive do developers have to take the time to put high quality add-ons in the marketplace?


> But don't let me discourage you. If you want to sell a News management
> tool for $2000 go for it, but be prepared to sell very little.
That’s fine. I’d rather sell five of those over two years than a hundred of them at $55.

> Maybe it's not even anything different about
> the add-on itself, but rather a special "enterprise"
> license based on whether the site using the
> add-on is personal or corporate.

The more I think about it, the more I think that 2 or more classes of licensing should be available. It's commonplace in the software world to have separate licenses for personal vs. small business vs. enterprise.

Perhaps the whole add-on packaging/bundling discussion here...

http://www.concrete5.org/community/forums/chat/5-for-the-price-of-3...

...should shift toward a licensing discussion.

-Steve

Ok, I really think this discussion is worth pursuing. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that charging more per add-on to businesses makes a ton of sense. Why should a private party or non-profit pay exactly the same amount as a business that is using the software in a for-profit venture?

Establishing a mulit-tiered (at least 2-tiered) pricing system would enable authors of existing themes and add-ons to reap the benefits as well. But in order for such a system to really work, it would have to be directly supported by the marketplace.

Even if the pricing isn't in the realm that skote suggests, it seems all parties involved would stand to benefit. If a non-commercial license costs $50 and a commercial license costs $150 (or $250 or $500 or whatever the developer decides), that's significant!

I guess what puzzles me is that this thread - despite the talk of perceived value and greater income potential - seems to be in direct contradiction to the "5 for 3" thread regarding bulk purchases. I mean, the whole thrust of that discussion is "how to we go about charging LESS per unit." I just don't get it.

I mean, what do we want to do here? If we want to create quality software for a quality CMS and sell it at a price that reflects its value and generates a decent income, then I think a commercial / non-commercial licensing scheme MUST be seriously considered.

Anyone else with me on this?

-Steve

I have two thoughts:

1.) what would I pay to have this developed for me in either my time or someone elses, and is the price of this addon a savings?

2.) this developer is going to get that cost again and again and again. if I can in fact develop this, or something like it, and then support it myself, can I be making some of that money...and is it worth MY time?

Speaking honestly...I try to price my addons in a range that I as a programmer see the value in. So if it's to much...F it...I'll make my own.

Chad

I hear ya, Chad. I guess what I'm saying is twofold:

1) It makes perfect sense to me to charge more for a commercial license than for a non-commercial one.

2) It should be up to the developer to determine both prices (including making them both the same if they so choose).

Personally, I try to be sensitive to the needs of private parties and non-profit organizations and would try to price my add-ons accordingly, but that would generally mean they are ridiculously underpriced for commercial use.

If, for instance, I price an add-on at $15 for non-commercial use to keep it accessible to individuals and charities, I might want to charge $29 - $49 for a commercial license. The commercial license would apply to a company purchasing the add-on directly or a developer creating a site for a commercial entity (and wishing to use my add-on). Obviously, if that developer decides the commercial license is too steep, they are free to create their own solution.

I'm looking beyond just the developer community, though, and trying to consider the tens of thousands of C5 users out there (a "good mix" of which are mid-sized companies according to Franz) who might purchase the add-on directly.

-Steve

I really am not trying to be negative nancy, I swear, but the tier licensing assumes the end user is being honest on their intended use and will purchase accordingly. Or assumes we are going to 'police' the use. (I know I am not). I fully believe that there are some people who have re used my themes with out paying for it. <shrug> This is the trade off for digital delivery.

Not sure how this post went to tiered pricing. The other thing that would be nice to see one day is a non-profit pricing scheme - something that is approved like Google Apps for non-profits. That way c5 can be a little more friendly.

But you can do a lot with c5 especially with the ever growing amount of free addons.

I want to see where this post goes next :P

> Not sure how this post went to tiered pricing.

Because I think skote raised a good point about under-valuing add-ons, but I'm not prepared to set my prices in the stratosphere. Therefore, what I'm proposing is what I think is a good compromise that could benefit all involved.

-Steve

> the tier licensing assumes the end user is
> being honest on their intended use and will
> purchase accordingly.

Of course it does. And many other developers are, and have been for years, relying on the honesty of the end users.

> I fully believe that there are some people who
> have re used my themes with out paying for it.
> <shrug> This is the trade off for digital delivery.

Of course there are dishonest people, and other posts in the forum confirm your suspicion that some folks ignore the "pay per site" licensing. I doubt a tiered pricing scheme would eliminate that (although one could argue that it might actually reduce it).

Personally, I suspect it's private individuals who are most likely to "re-use" licenses no matter what the price - just because they can and it's so easy. They'll justify it somehow. In fact, one could argue that if there is more than one price, and the lower one applies to them, that it just might discourage such pirating precisely because they feel they are getting a more fair deal. I mean, why should "Jo Mama" have to pay the same price as a Fortune 1000 company to use an add-on on her personal website.

I'm not suggesting $2000 add-ons; nor am I suggesting a $0.99 iPhone app approach. I think there's a middle ground and a good way to generate more revenue with a time-proven approach - i.e. commercial and non-commercial licensing fees.

-Steve

The problem I see with this kind of thinking is that developers/companies try to sell a product or service (the product) based on "how much can we get from them" instead of the actual value of the product. Flat rates are fair across the board. Now it is completely different to value a product at $x but then to offer that same product to non-profits at a discounted or free rate. The difference is not that they are inflating the value for commercial use, they are just providing that $x product to the non-profit at a more affordable rate. Which I do believe provides tax benefits to the developer or company providing that product.

But if you go and take a product and value it at $x and then hike that price up because you know you can get more out of a company, that, imho, is unethical.

> The problem I see with this kind of thinking is that
> developers/companies try to sell a product or service
> (the product) based on "how much can we get from them"

That's not where I'm coming from at all. I'm coming from a standpoint of what's "fair," and it's simply not fair that a charitable organization or private party pay the same as a for-profit entity that sees value in your software as part of their money-making endeavors. Commercial / non-commercial licensing is commonplace.

> instead of the actual value of the product.

"Value" is in large part perception. What's valuable to one may not be to another.

> Flat rates are fair across the board.

I completely disagree. (That's not a statement of fact. It's your opinion based on what _your_ definition of fair.)

> Now it is completely different to value a product at $x but then
> to offer that same product to non-profits at a discounted or free rate.

Yes, that's just my suggestion viewed from a different perspective. My point is, as I stated, that non-profits and private individuals should not have to pay the same as commercial entities.

> Which I do believe provides tax benefits to the developer
> or company providing that product.

Yes, very good point, but I personally would not bother with the record keeping required to take advantage of any tax breaks associated with non-profit sales, so I'm fine with just having 2 different prices available right on the product page. I still think that other non-commercial (which are not necessarily non-profit entities) should not have to pay a commercial license fee. Perhaps 3 license prices are needed.

> But if you go and take a product and value it at $x and then hike
> that price up

There's no "price hike". There would simply be two (perhaps 3) prices that are visible right on the product page. For example...

$49 Commercial License
$29 Personal license
$19 Non-profit license

Again, I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, so let's not focus on the specific values, as those would be chosen by the developer.

Commercial / non-commercial licensing is commonplace in the software industry, and I think it's quite appropriate here.

-Steve

Might as well jump in. This is all a matter of opinions and personal definitions of words anyway. Could be fun.

> "That's not where I'm coming from at all. I'm coming from a standpoint of what's "fair," and it's simply not fair that a charitable organization or private party pay the same as a for-profit entity that sees value in your software as part of their money-making endeavors. Commercial / non-commercial licensing is commonplace."

You say it's not fair to charge everyone the same price. I would argue that anyone who is willing to pay money for your add-on finds "value" in it. You're assuming "profit" always means monetary gain, however, even non-profits "profit" from your add-on if it means increased activity.

> I would argue that anyone who is willing to
> pay money for your add-on finds "value" in it

"Value" is a relative term. If you price an add-on at $39 and it's just not "worth it" (i.e. not of sufficient value) at that price for "Jane Blogger" to use it on her site BUT she would certainly shell out $15 for such functionality, then either you've either missed or made a sale, depending on the license pricing available.

-Steve

just price it how you want it, during the review process we may say its to much or to little for what the addon does, but the final decision is all yours,

if people don't buy it, you can always lower the price, its not like your going to make less money, there is only a change that you make money

[quote]$49 Commercial License
$29 Personal license
$19 Non-profit license
[/quote]

This is very common with software. Expression Engine does this only CMS I can think of off the top of my head that does. Like I said before I think it depends on a lot of honesty from the buyer but it would help with the guys who complain in the forums about things not being free because their project has no budget because of X. I always tend to look at the add ons being used primarily for commercial purposes but that is a very narrow view I suppose.

edit: omg no quote feature or did i miss something.

Tiered pricing... that’s one way to do it, and it may be helpful.

My purpose in starting this thread was to “wake up the developers” to the fact that their work is underpriced, and try to convince them to begin raising their prices to a level that is compensatory to their hard work.

That last part is key... compensatory for their hard work. Here’s what I suggest each developer do: START by figuring out a price that you believe compensates you adequately for your hard work (taking into account development time, testing, packaging, tech support, and the fact that the module may be sold more than once). THEN, modify the price according to your target audience. Give non-profits a 30% or 50% break.

Well you also have to take into perceived market value based off of your competition. I realize that my contribution to this is not the same as I do themes but I have to price my themes vs what someone else can purchase at other markets for another theme. Theme forest the avg price is $35 for a Wordpress Theme. Granted they are not c5 but they are still direct competition in terms of a CMS and what that buyer could make in terms of a choice.

It does not take a big leap to go the same route on add ons. You and I understand that tested add ons that work with the core is way better than everyone let's build a widget and it might be tested or not Wordpress way. Not all users can see or understand that and all they see is with Wordpress I get a free add on that does this and you want me to pay XXX for it here?

@Shotster

>Why should a private party or non-profit pay exactly the same amount
> as a business that is using the software in a for-profit venture?

Careful. With that thinking you end up with free for non-commercial use and we all know what the core team think of that, eh?

Oooh. Necro-thread :)

Hey Everyone

I guess this an old thread, but I'm revisiting it because Envato have put Concrete5 in their categories now for themeforest.net, and I've noticed an add-on at their codecanyon.net too.

Well worth a look at their pricing structures, as I guess it realtes to this post a bit (well, what it transformed in to)...

I guess my bit is, I'm just a web designer, I don't do development of blocks, so I rely on the marketplace blocks for a lot of functionality across my sites.

The difference I see is that I chose Concrete5 because of the marketplace prices, because they suit my client market. I deal with small businesses and start-ups with little capital, so they can get a good deal from me when I use C5.

I can understand the reasoning for a block at $1000, If that was the going rate across the board I would pay it, mark it up and use it.

The problem is, I build a whole website for less than $1000... Why? Because my competitors do the same. And because that is usually the budget of my client.

I looked at Dot Net Nuke in the beginning too - but because of specific hosting requirements and their rich marketplace at snowcovered, it just wasn't the correct option to suit my small business clients. I have a friend who uses dotnetnuke, and the sites are great... he doesn't charge much less than $3500 per site, usually up to $20,000 or more for some... and that's great, he can recover the add-on costs. But some of my clients probably don't even have a credit card with that limit on it.

I'm all for inflated marketplace prices if they are recoverable in a site build - but just because a site is built for business, doesn't mean they are making millions each year either. Some do... and some don't.

$1000 for a newsfeed? Yeah, if I had a client that had that sort of money... but how much would the site be worth to get your return on that? I mean a newsfeed is a small item on the scale of a website... so even if you sell your site for $5000... is that newsfeed really worth 20% off your bottom line? I don't know... I guess I could charge higher prices for websites and go make a squillion, but I feel more comfortable in knowing that I've helped someone out who is trying to give it a go.

It's a tough topic... but I guess the marketplace prices as they are for the moment, stops me from going over to Wordpress.

I am the original poster on this thread, and I still stand by what I wrote three years ago. Since that time, I have developed many more useful modules for my clients, but will not ever put them in the marketplace. It's just not worth my time.

Mind if I ask why not? I found this discussion because I have an add-on I'm planning to release in the $500-$1000 range and I had the exact same questions about the viability of larger, higher-priced add-ons. I think it would help the community as a whole if there were more add-ons like this in the marketplace, and encourage more development. I'm not sure raising the price of the current marketplace offerings is necessarily a solution, because honestly the majority of them are relatively simple, and priced about right.

I don't see why the simple <$50 add-ons and $2500 add-ons can't co-exist in the same marketplace. Different customer bases.

Simple math. Time is money, and I can make $125/hr doing work elsewhere.

Say I put one of my modules in the marketplace and charge $500 for it (which is far less than I charge my clients). Some newbie comes around and can't figure out how to make it work, or has some minor trouble with it. I'm required to offer tech support, so I spend two hours in back-and-forth emails with the guy. In the end, I still come out ahead because I would have made $250 elsewhere for the time spent, but instead I made $500 -- a total profit of $250. Good deal. (This is of course not taking into account any profit the C5 Marketplace team skims off the top)

But say I had noticed that all the other modules are priced somewhere around $50, and I felt compelled to price mine competitively at that same point. After all, who's going to spend $500 on a calendar module when they could get something very similar for $50? So now the newbie comes around and wants his tech support. In this scenario, I spend the same two hours in emails and in the end have a net loss of $200, compared to what I could have made elsewhere.

Not every sale results in tech support requests, but we all know that there are a few which suck up a large amount of time, and you can't cherry-pick who you're going to support.

Also, all of this doesn't take into account the time spent packaging up modules for use in the marketplace, creating graphics / icons, going through the approval process, etc. Before even your first sale, you might have 10 or 15 hours invested in the module. To me, that's worth almost $2,000 of my time. Just to recoup my costs, I'd have to sell 38 copies of it, without spending any time on tech support.

If most of the modules were priced at the $500 or $2,500 or even at the $10,000 level, then it would be worth my time. But giving up my valuable time for peanuts like $50 is absolutely not worth it.

Another thing you need to bear in mind for the marketplace is that submissions need to be more robust and adaptable to work in a wider range of situations and structured so they are less likely to get in to arguments with other code.

A bespoke addon that gets used for one customer at a time only needs to work in that one customer's site with that customer's theme and the other addons that customer uses. Next customer, maybe you adjust it a little to work with their site and theme and not mess with another block you add.

You can control the whole picture. If your addon argues with the theme or another addon, you can adjust the theme or other addon, you are not restricted to adjusting your addon.

Wearing my PRB hat, I see many new developers submit addons that are perfectly good for the site they developed them for and maybe a few others, but they have not been built from the start with the big wide world of the marketplace in mind.

Same here.. The marketplace would work for me/us if our company was based in a different country, but selling an add-on for a few bucks isn't worth the effort. As soon as you have some beginners looking for support, it's a huge loss for us. I like the place where I am, but things are too expensive compared to other countries, which is why we can't and won't compete in the marketplace.

We've built more than 100 add-ons, lots of them are unique and could easily be published in the marketplace and I'm aware of a lot more companies throughout Europe being in the same position.

I did some small work with OctoberCMS a while ago, most of their add-ons are priced at $9.95, I guess things could be even worse ;-)

@Remo, OctoberCMS some time ago...hmmm I think you misspoke there. It's only been out of Alpha for a month.

They are completely different markets regardless. One is targeting people who can't do it themselves, and the other is targeting developers who can.

ChadStrat

Different sense of time ;-)

I have some Add Ons that I don't sell in the Marketplace, I have one in particular that if I do put in I would charge $300 for it. I think there is a place for premium Add Ons, one's that are more advanced or specialized.

On the lower end, under $50 add ons that are well designed and do what they are attend to can sell and require very little to no support. They just become passive income.