What makes it hard to monetize browser extensions?

Question

With the monetization of mobile apps being so popular, I'm surprised that extension developers are still mostly relying on donations as their primary form of compensation for their software.

While this is, of course, not a problem, I find myself wondering why browser extensions and plugins are generally exempt from monetization unlike plugins designed for software like Visual Studio and Photoshop are very often available only with purchase.

What makes broswer extensions different, and has anyone had any success charging for a browser extension?

Relevant: http://www.quora.com/Monetization/How-do-browser-extensions-monetize

Answer 1

I think the main reason is that browser extensions aren't monetised. That means that people dont expect to pay for their browser extensions and so they aren't likely to want to.

For a browser extension to be worth money, it would have to be better than any free equivalent in it's particular domain. I can't think of many regular extensions that I would want to pay for ( Firebug, maybe, at a push ) and if there were some I might decide to use a more basic free equivalent or just not do the thing the extension facilitates. How many extensions are really critical to your use of a browser?

Given that people expect their browsers to be free, I don't think there is a great perceived value to extensions to those browsers.

Answer 2

I think it has a lot to do with payments infrastructure.

Apple's iStore has a well set up near monopoly on iPhone app delivery. Its slick has lots of high value desirable items like tunes and movies as well as applications and the consumer only has to go through the pain of registration and credit card details once.

Apple accounts for the vast majority of paid for phone apps 99% according to this

For web plugins here is no equivalent of iStore or Amazon. I.E. a trusted retailer who you don't mind giving your credit card details to, and, who you are likely to use again so its worth registering with.

Also while plugins are great for developers I cannot think of a use for a plugin app that would be attractive enough to an ordinary consumer that would have them reaching for their credit card.

Answer 3

It's probably largely historical.

Most apps for most phones were distributed primarily via carriers for quite a while, and they've monetized virtually everything since day one. Even most ring-tones cost money (often twice over -- pay once for the ring-tone proper, and again for downloading it).

Contrariwise, pretty much since Microsoft decided to start giving away copies of IE, all browsers on PCs have been free, and (to be honest) most have been working hard to maintain market share even though they are free. Extensions have been seen by many as a way of "selling" the browser itself, and were largely given away to help gain market share for the developer's preferred browser(s).

That leads to a lot of inertia as well. Given the large (huge?) number of really good extensions that are already free, I suspect the number of users who'd even consider paying for extensions is pretty small. The field is already pretty crowded, so you'd need to do something quite spectacular to justify any higher price.

I believe the Google app store (for one example) already supports a pay model at least in theory; given the number and quality of free extensions, however, it's hard to imagine an extension gaining many customers at a higher price.

Answer 4

Most of the answers here relate to the direct monetization of add-ons where the end user is asked to pay for the service. But there are some add-ons (and mobile apps for that matter) that monetize indirectly either by placing advertising on their thank you pages or through direct monetization of their users through affiliate links.

For many of the reasons stated already, I don't believe anyone's quite figured out how to get end users to pay for an add-on or BHO. But I have seen services like After Download that can help developers with really popular add-ons place ads on their thank you pages. You can earn a few easy bucks that way.

I also know there are price comparison/shopping add-ons that are naturally monetized, meaning that its core service is to display coupons, deals, and offers where user clicks generate revenue. The company I work for, Superfish, happens to have such a product and we also offer our service as a "white label" product for add-on developers. That is, we work with developers who simply inject our javascript through their add-on and they automatically get our functionality and monetization. And if you have a relatively large user base, the revenue generated can be quite significant.

Answer 5

Another point, a lot of popular extensions are there to view content. And while the plugins to view this content are gratis, the programs to create this content are often not.

If you want to sell a lot of the content-creating software, you have to make sure that all the customers of your customers can view this content. That's why they don't charge for viewers.

Answer 6

I believe this is due to developers writing the extension for themselves and felt generous enough to place it online. The donations would simply be icing on the cake.

Answer 7

It depends on what you mean by "monetized".

I use the NoScript extension for Firefox. While this is free (as in beer) software, the author solicits donations and has links on his product site from project sponsors.

OTOH, the Firefox Add-ons site doesn't provide any obvious way to buy browser add-ons, so that is clearly an impediment for folks who would wish to sell them ...