A price should either be "cheap and cheerful" or "real and worthwhile". $60/year for a single company is cheap and cheerful, $228/year is very much "Real and Worthwhile".
$228/year may be reasonable for a "limited" piece of software but it is too much for crippled software. Make it $60, make it work or take it away, it's an unnecessarily irritating package.
I hate this argument. It's so narrowly focused (and for some reason, often regurgitated). Money adds up a lot quicker than that one hour of your time. If you save yourself 10 hours of work per month because of a couple services you pay for, but end up spending an extra $300/month while your startup isn't making any money -- is that actually smart time/money management?
There are more factors involved than simply how you value your time. The stage your business is in, how much money you're pulling in, how many other things you need to get done per day, is your startup bootstrapped, do you still have a day job, etc.
I think the question still applies. How much your time is worth does not need to be hypothetical - it can take into consideration how much your employer (presumably your startup) can afford to pay you for your time.
Why do you think that opportunity cost is specifically applicable to this situation? If it's "just in general" then I don't believe that opportunity cost is a good argument for continuing the meme of "How much is your time worth?" in these kinds of discussions. If it is applicable, it would have to be on a case-by-case basis to even make sense, no?
