Ask HN: Do people actually pay for small web tools?

58 points by scratchyone ↗ HN
Hey all, there's a lot of web stuff and tools I'd love to make that I think would honestly be worth a small subscription ($5/mo maybe). I'm always a bit wary of approaching these ideas though because I feel like nobody would ever pay for small web stuff?

I see a lot of success stories but I don't know how much they can be trusted. Those of you who have built small single-use indie tools, do you find that anybody at all actually subscribes? A lot of the stuff I wanna try involves AI so I'd have to make sure subscription profits offset the cost of providing free demos.

74 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] thread
Speaking for myself: NO.

Perhaps HN is not the best audience to ask this question. A mostly tech savvy audience is more likely to solve their personal needs with a quick script, etc.

From a business perspective, you need to frame your MVP in terms of what problem you are solving? How many people really do have that problem? Of those people how many are willing to pay for the solution?

Whether you use AI or not is largely irrelevant. The knowledge of a specific domain and the typical problems encountered therein are far more relevant.

Yeah agreed with AI being irrelevant. I most mention that to explain that rather than just hosting costs, there are additional costs for model inference that make it a lot harder to break even. I'm fine with little to no profit as long as I can at least avoid losing money on side projects haha
I think you are asking the right question here. Before building something determine if there is a market, and if that market will pay.

Personally my gut says no. I personally don't use any tools in that range, but I also think that at first glance the numbers don't add up.

Firstly, people pay for value. You seem to feel your ideas are low value (hence the low price) which means you don't really expect users to use it a lot. And "very occasional use" doesn't motivate me to go to the effort of paying.

Since the absolute number is low, you're either expecting really tiny numbers or you're hoping for really high numbers. The tiny numbers result in tiny revenues and tiny profits, so what's the point?

High numbers of people are likely to consume all that revenue. If you got high numbers you'd like ho the ads based route, with maybe a premium "no ads" subscription. But then you can charge more (getting rid of ads is $20 value.)

But again people dont pay for occasional use. If the use is frequent then it's likely more valuable than 5$.

To answer your root question - people don't "subscribe" to single-use tools (if by single-use you mean one-time-use.)

Perhaps you need to charge more? (People pay $10 for a coffee and that's single use). Or charge per use?

See that's my challenge! Very well put. I see a lot of influencers bragging about mini SaaS apps being profitable but I don't know if I really see how. I'm more interested in multi-use simple tools. For example, an app that solves a common small problem/inconvenience really well is probably worth $5/mo (I would probably pay for that), but I can't imagine anyone just buys subscriptions to indie apps haha. I'm honestly happy with very low profit if it's possible. I love building stuff as a hobby and I'd just like to make enough money to cover my hosting costs so I can run side projects that cost me a bit to deploy. Maybe a better model is 1-2 free uses and then sign up and then charge per use at-cost? That way I can cover costs without getting people stuck into a subscription...
What problem(s) are you looking to solve?
ironically, at $5/mo? no.

at $60/mo without even asking a question about the product? yep, all the time.

$5/month is sort of the worst spot. I'd pay $1/month for some things (budgeting tools) and $20/month for say, chatgpt. And I paid $5 lifetime (life being ~5 years) for a resume tool once.

These days AI will probably build most of the things you'd charge a tiny fee for. $5/month is kind of the rate of a battle pass for a MMO, not quite a "small tool".

$1/month might be a bit shit because of transaction fees unless you charge per-year instead.
Some forms of payment charge on a percentage. Microtransactions are a thing too.
But you are then also the kind of customer that nobody wants. It's not worth doing business with people who want to pay less than $10 per month for a service. Those are problem customers always, so it's better to price them out.
People, no. Companies, yes.

If a web tool saves me and my team at work a bit of time for $5/month, yes, 100%, swipe the company card! Sure let’s buy another JS table library.

But if I’m working on a personal project, or I have to pay for said tool with my personal card, probably not. I’ll spend the time building my own solution from scratch while never actually finishing my project.

Also depends on whether company is building it for themselves or a client.

Just the licensing/subscription mess can be detraction if now your company have to tell your client that they need to pay for some 3rd party thing, even if your client have no problems with it it can take months if bureaucracy machine is slow

A former colleague makes it an interview question. He asks the recruiter what the procedure is if he wants to buy a product or use a service under $100/year. If the bureaucracy is overwhelming, it's a major red flag.

When I was working at Cisco, the general rule was to get manager approval and just go for it. Of course, these days, there are security concerns but for most cases, it's not a problem.

In a different company, it was sooo hard to get anything that they refused to buy JetBrains IntelliJ and forced us to use Eclipse. Most of us ended up buying it ourselves.

That is actually pretty clever & reveals quite a lot about the company culture.
On the other hand if you are targeting companies, just charging $5/month is leaving money on the table. If a company is willing to pay $5/month they are almost certainly also willing to pay $50/month.
It's as complex for me to spend $5 as it is $500, and businesses would approve it equally... but if I perceive it to be excessively priced I won't even try to.
I would definitely pay a small amount for a tool. What I would not do for a personal project is pay $150 every year to renew a small wordpress plugin.
I found that selling to some companies comes with a lot of bureaucracy attached.

The last company we signed up to our service took 3 months and at least 4 hours of paperwork, I personally wanted to just tell them to go somewhere else but we kept getting emails from the dev team saying sorry

there's a lot of web stuff and tools I'd love to make

Make that stiff because doing what you love is doing what you love.

$5/mo

As a business, that is a terrible price. It is not enough money to provide good service and outsource all the things that should be outsourced. [1] Even worse good potential customers know this and bad potential customers don’t care if your business is unsustainable.

[1]: At five bucks a month you will need thousands of customers to cover one well-paid employee [2} focused on customer service, but acquiring, retaining, and servicing thousands of customers probably requires more than one full-time employee…

[2]: Of course if you are doing what you love, then being paid well might not matter. But unless you love solving billing problems, you will be doing some things you don’t love. But being well paid to do what you love is not bad.

I paid for R# out of pocket monthly for years between multiple companies when I was programming in C#. I can’t imagine any other tool that I’ve come across that I wanted.

Got any examples of small web tools that people are charging for?

For a subscription, no. If it's a really good tool, I'd pay some small amount under $20 depending on what it is.
Personally, no, I would not pay $5/mo for some small single-use tool. Some tools I would (and have) pay per use.
Indiehackers.com has stripe-verified revenue for many small saas so check that out to see what makes money. General trend is other than the AI assistant bubble, the money is in marketing automation. The bar is high for dev tools. You compete with Jetbrains for quality and a lot of free stuff for price. Unless you are very niche. E.g. I think something like a tool that solves kubernetes soc2 compliance sort of thing.
I built a tool that lets you read any article and especially and newsletter on Kindle. I charge $6-$10 monthly or about $60-$85 yearly for it and >150 active subscribers. The yearly pre-payment that's about 20% cheaper than monthly is by far the most popular plan.
If you don't mind sharing, how long did it take you to reach that level?
I could probably name like 6 companies of the top of my head, all of them being in the boat of "call us and we give you our custom software for your business need", where any competent developer can probably come in, look at the use case, and probably write the entire backed in about 2-3 months (and now with LLMs, 3-4 months for front end and backed).

The thing about monetization of software isn't about usefulness, its about marketing, which starts with realizing that the things that are trivial for you to do are way less trivial for others.

Small tools on big platforms? The number of 5 buck wordpress extensions I see in the bloated corpses of my customers webpages is telling.
5$/mo is expensive for a small tool. 20$ once would be fine.
I pay for a small wiki like site for my D&D campaigns.

Yeah I can fiddle with self hosting and finding the right OSS tools, but really, I just don't want to think about it. Its a small fee and I'll happily pay it.

https://www.obsidianportal.com/

(comment deleted)
Currently I pay for LWN, SourceHut, and an email service I'm trying out. I often forget to read LWN for weeks, but I keep renewing it year after year, because I honestly love taking a few minutes out of my morning, get coffee and read an article or two.

SourceHut, I don't use as much as I'd like, but the build and chat services keeps me paying. It's cheap, and I get a lot of enjoyment from using it.

I think if you do these types of services, then you really need to make sure that people feel good about using your service. I know that's a tricky and rather fluffy goal, but you either need to be REALLY good and then you can charge more than $5, or you can make people feel good and if the amount is low, it becomes an easy renewal next month/year.

If you're making a tool, fixed price for the current version, upgrade price for the next version, no subscription. I think we're at a point in time where your target audience would rather fork over $25 right now and then get a license, but would be hard press to give you $5 per month, even for a single month.

The only time I paid was for Excel or Wordpress plugins and it would have been a one time payment.
Things I’ve paid over the last 15 years.

- Plex lifetime

- gmail workspace (was free lots of years, but not now) - domain(s)

- some Wordpress themes in the past for business clients

Nothing more, and I’d like to get out of workspace…

But internet is gigantic, just ship it.

Webapps? I prefer not. No reason most of these apps should be web apps or subscription based. I prefer local apps
I concur but as someone who is currently trying to bootstrap a small software business, I've gotten doubts about the viability of selling small native apps. The administration and technical overhead for each platform has grown out of proportion for a solo-developer. You have to deal with certificates & signing, app stores, mandatory testing & reviews, false antivirus positives, platform-specific requirements, etc., and all of this in addition to the marketing, running a business, and developing the product.
is signing a must?

can't it work by just sending them the app or letting them download and install it?

I have not used windows for a while, so don't know much about signing.

Sorry, I'm replying a bit late, just saw this. Signing is not a must but unsigned executables trigger Defender's warning screen way more easily (always in the beginning) and users have to define it as an exception to explicitly run the app. Signing the binaries does not guarantee that no warning is triggered but they help making the screen go away. It depends on the certificate. The most expensive certifications, EV certificates, will allow users to run the binaries as a trusted binary without warning screen but they require very extensive org authentication.

Some companies go with unsigned binaries but it's not recommended. It's hard to quantify how many users are lost with unsigned executables, and probably depends a lot on the area. For example, I've noticed that many small producers of audio plugins don't sign their installers and customers don't seem to care much. However, most normal end consumer software is signed at least with OV certificates.

See [1] for more info.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/electronjs/comments/17sizjf/a_guide...