Page 2 of 2

Re: Poll Multiple Vehicles on the trinity

Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 11:42 pm
by budlun
I would be glad to pay $200 to be able to tune all my vehicles , not just one more , but as many as I might have. At least four.

Re: Poll Multiple Vehicles on the trinity

Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 9:52 am
by Mike_Levy
You can forget that. Thats an instant money loser. Charging per license is a necessity, and 4 vehicles, you can count on at bare minimum, $600.

Re: Poll Multiple Vehicles on the trinity

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:20 pm
by dwolson2
I think 200 for 4 wouldn't be good for the company. Mike any headway?

Re: Poll Multiple Vehicles on the trinity

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:28 pm
by stylish313
I'd pay an extra $200 for an additional license.

Re: Poll Multiple Vehicles on the trinity

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:36 pm
by 2012AWDRT
I voted for $50 or less..... but after reading the comments, I do believe that a $200 additional license per vehicle would be pretty darn fair. Considering its a little more than an unlock, an no hardware has to change hands. This will however likely hurt the resale value (possibly) for private parties that need to get rid of theirs via Ebay or other means.... as a portion of the purchasing power is now not looking for used devices to get cheaply into another tuner for car #2, 3, etc....

I think Licensing is where the money is at, definately. Managing it might be difficult, but likely a worthy investment for the return. It just depends how much is being made off new purchases vs 'unlocks', and I don't have those numbers to do the math.

Brian
'13 SRT Charger

Re: Poll Multiple Vehicles on the trinity

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:58 am
by dtru1222
mikel wrote:Yeah, but we also have to consider that an extra license likely means one less piece of hardware sold, so we have to make sure we don't go out of business by doing this :)
I think the number of people willing to buy a second tuner is FAR less than people willing to buy a second licence. Along with the idea that you will probably sell more hardware with the possibility of tuning multiple vehicles. I dont see how you wouldnt make money even at the $150 mark.

Then again I dont know your profit margin for hardware.

Re: Poll Multiple Vehicles on the trinity

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:41 am
by provoking
Just had to chime in as I am in the business world and there is one thing we always look to accomplish and that is to increase the share of wallet of our client base. Many times businesses feel as though providing some type of dual license feature would prevent someone from buying two, but while that may be true of some, you would actually increase the share of wallet of a larger group of your customer base while also building client loyalty.

An example is me, I have a Dodge Magnum which I am getting a Tuner for. I also have a secondary Truck. I would love to tune the truck, but not willing to spend a large amount of money to do so as it is not worth it considering the use. Everyone has their pride and joy to tune and that is my Magnum, not my Ram.

So the question a business has to make being that I would venture to say there are more like me - would you rather have $600 in revenue from me or would you rather have $750 in revenue?


Also a good lessen from Microsoft and now Google, the profit margins are in the software, not the hardware.

Re: Poll Multiple Vehicles on the trinity

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:09 pm
by Mike_Levy
provoking wrote:

Also a good lessen from Microsoft and now Google, the profit margins are in the software, not the hardware.
Except DiabloSport is a hardware company, not a software company. If they were a software company they could just release apps for iOS and Android and be done with it.

Re: Poll Multiple Vehicles on the trinity

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:20 pm
by lloydhanna12
I would definitely pay $200 to be able to do one additional vehicle. But until then I'll just go back and forth. I'm not willing to pay another $600 for another trinity. Its more trouble going back and forth but a whole lot cheaper.