CLCTN · PRICING STRATEGY · AUGUST 2026

Same product. Different shape — and, within limits, a different amount.

The friction isn't the amount — it's the form. A German collector reads a €2/month app as a trap; an American reads a €30 upfront app as a risk. Both would happily pay about the same money over three years. So the proposal is: hold the product identical, let each storefront choose the container it trusts, and move the amount only inside a band we could publish without flinching (section 05).

Every number below is a proposal to argue with, not a decision. What I'd like agreed first is the posture — section 06.

01 · THE PRINCIPLE

One product, one entitlement,
three containers.

{{ c.k }}

{{ c.t }}

{{ c.b }}

{{ c.who }}

The containers must unlock exactly the same app. The moment a subscriber gets a feature the lifetime buyer doesn't, we've built two products and we'll be maintaining both for a decade.

02 · MARKET BY MARKET

Five storefronts, five defaults.

"Default" means what the paywall shows first and biggest. The other options stay available one tap below — nobody is prevented from buying the way they want.

{{ m.name }}

{{ m.code }}

{{ m.tag }}

{{ m.headline }}

{{ m.why }}

Risk · {{ m.risk }}

PROPOSED PAYWALL

{{ p.label }}

{{ p.price }}

{{ m.note }}

03 · RULES THAT HOLD EVERYWHERE

{{ r.n }}

{{ r.t }}

{{ r.b }}

04 · WHAT IT COSTS US

{{ c.t }}

{{ c.b }}

05 · SHOULD THE AMOUNT VARY TOO?

Yes — but on two axes, not four.

Varying the shape of payment is free: nobody is offended that the paywall looks different in Tokyo. Varying the amount is where you can win a few points of conversion and lose the thing that makes an indie app trusted. The test I'd apply: could we publish the reason on the pricing page without embarrassment?

06 · YOUR CALL