Does it strike anyone else here as ironic that people with $600 phones that cost $100 a month with a two-year contractual minimums would look at software priced more than $5 as conspicuous consumption?

Considering that WA's iPhone app seems to be little more than a wrapper around their free offering, it seems entirely reasonable to question the $50 price tag.

In other words, if they didn't offer the free website, or if their iPhone app didn't require a net connection, I'd easily consider the $50 price justifiable.

The phone costs 199 and 75 a month. It is expensive, but why exaggerate?

he's not really exaggerating, though. i bought my iphone in the first few days after release, and i did indeed pay 600 bucks for it. it has come down since then, but there are those of us who paid that.

i can't remember the exact details, but the cost for the data plan went up after they introduced 3g support, and dropped the 200 free text messages per month.

It cost you more than $199. You just don't realize it, because Apple and your carrier did a good job of snookering you.

Actually it's a signifier in two status orders at once. It says "$50 is nothing to me." and "I am smart enough and knowledgeable enough to find this useful."

That was my thought also, in which case they haven't miscalculated at all. Expensive enough that TechCrunch will want to ridicule them, but cheap enough that a few people will grab it for the hell of it.

Maximising unit sales and maximising profits are two separate things.