I have been reflecting about software price cos i have heard so many contradictions about it, from the part of those defending high prices, as well as from those against it.
How can we truly and objectively understand prices in software? How can we measure it? Effort perhaps, time, level of programming… but it is still a lot subjective.
I am not particularly against or in favour of any given position; I just would like to sort out the real thing, clearing out my mind.
After having explained myself, here is the question itself:
How much should a specific software cost, and why, which are the parameters to give to it a fair price?
The price of software, which is the right one and why?
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
well, that's a question that's loaded with philosophical issues. Here's my conclusion: The companies set their price, take it or leave it. Judging whether the price is right or not isn't really up to the customers. Of course, as you say, there is some sense in having an internal idea of what to expect before accepting what the manufacturer wants you to pay.
Here are some things that I think gives manufacturers the right to ask for a high price. Proprietory technology, would be obvious. The more in house trade secrets a company has, the more it justifies a high price. The complexity of the software would be another reason. For example, given the complexity, I think 3DStudio Max deserves to be expensive. Lastly, there's demand. If something becomes an industry standard, people will pay a lot to stick to the standard.
But in the end, I think "price" is such an ambiguous term, that there's really no way to make an objective judgement of it. Be it software or not. Traditional empiricism is the objective extreme, but modern constructivism is very contextual. Context is always the key, I think. err, well, I guess that was kind of obvious.
Here are some things that I think gives manufacturers the right to ask for a high price. Proprietory technology, would be obvious. The more in house trade secrets a company has, the more it justifies a high price. The complexity of the software would be another reason. For example, given the complexity, I think 3DStudio Max deserves to be expensive. Lastly, there's demand. If something becomes an industry standard, people will pay a lot to stick to the standard.
But in the end, I think "price" is such an ambiguous term, that there's really no way to make an objective judgement of it. Be it software or not. Traditional empiricism is the objective extreme, but modern constructivism is very contextual. Context is always the key, I think. err, well, I guess that was kind of obvious.
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6688
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
Ok Ken, right... but things are getting bigger every day, I mean, software is becoming something extremely important to even getting a buss, so important that it will be a mayor issue in just a few years, in every home, school, university, etc.
I think your point is reasonable. But unfortunately, software is becoming a “first need”. For instance, in sub developed countries like Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, etc., people are far from being able to buy software worth $500. $500 for somebody working in the USA is not as much… but here there are many families living about 3 month with it. How can this people have access to software?
Software is developed in “developed” countries, and so the price of money in those countries is much higher, and money change makes things terrible difficult for underdeveloped places in the world.
Globalization may work its way fixing some of those issues, but getting worst some others that decompensate the first.
I know many students that feel disappointed because they cannot “render” the same amount of intellectual development than the few lucky ones with money, because they don’t have access to a computer, and most particularly, to sophisticated software.
Not to say those university students that are into technology, that’s even worst because they need more software all the time.
This is just ONE issue to address respect to the price of software.
I think your point is reasonable. But unfortunately, software is becoming a “first need”. For instance, in sub developed countries like Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, etc., people are far from being able to buy software worth $500. $500 for somebody working in the USA is not as much… but here there are many families living about 3 month with it. How can this people have access to software?
Software is developed in “developed” countries, and so the price of money in those countries is much higher, and money change makes things terrible difficult for underdeveloped places in the world.
Globalization may work its way fixing some of those issues, but getting worst some others that decompensate the first.
I know many students that feel disappointed because they cannot “render” the same amount of intellectual development than the few lucky ones with money, because they don’t have access to a computer, and most particularly, to sophisticated software.
Not to say those university students that are into technology, that’s even worst because they need more software all the time.
This is just ONE issue to address respect to the price of software.
This is like the question "how much should certain jobs be paid". There is no easy answer.
Should a person be paid more because they do something damgerous ? Or stressful ? Or because it is important to the next generation (like teaching); or maybe high wages for dealing with noisy or filthy things; or maybe paid more because the work is monotonous but vital. Or paid more because of the level of training required or responsibility.
You can make a case for just about anything.
I think software is similar. You can argue many positions.
In the end it's probably best that the free market decide.
Unfortunately that will lead to some silly situations - just like the market delivers silly outcomes with wages. I mean how can it be right that people get millions of dollars for playing a game of tennis ?
But don't get me started about sport
Should a person be paid more because they do something damgerous ? Or stressful ? Or because it is important to the next generation (like teaching); or maybe high wages for dealing with noisy or filthy things; or maybe paid more because the work is monotonous but vital. Or paid more because of the level of training required or responsibility.
You can make a case for just about anything.
I think software is similar. You can argue many positions.
In the end it's probably best that the free market decide.
Unfortunately that will lead to some silly situations - just like the market delivers silly outcomes with wages. I mean how can it be right that people get millions of dollars for playing a game of tennis ?
But don't get me started about sport
as in all businesses, the proper price is the one that doesn't fleece the cutomers(as everyone is a customer for someone at some point), and that allows the company to pay those it employs salaries which allow them to live decent lives and still provides money for further developement. if this formula was followed down the line by all business, shortages would disappear as the greedy ones wouldn't be holding ALL the resources and the load would be shared by a broader base. this only works if everyone volunteers however, as it can't be legislated, so it is unlikely. also, greed sez that the words "need" and "decent" are among those open to interpretation, forgetting that golden rule, "treat others as i would like to be treated" and making a mockery of fairness.
since the customer really can't tell what that price really is(not being privy to company business figures), the decision by the customer is usually an emotional one of "i'd pay that." or "that's too much!", rather than a sensible one. hence, you have colonized peoples who can't participate because the colonizers don't want to pay fair prices for labor and materials(thus the need to outsource), lowering the price in the short term, but leaving a huge debt due in the long term(and i'm an american i should know...). luckily i will pass before it can all be recovered. unfortunately for some relation in the future, the debt will become payable in body and spirit.
those who complain about software prices are generally ignorant to the work that went into making the ware available. it needs to be paid for, just like the blood debt of our ancestors. when the note is paid, the earth will be seen as a place of bounty. until then, it will be shortages and famine for some, and luxury for others. the interest is mounting and making the debt more odious daily. the debt is easily payable if not ignored, but if ignored the collection agency is hell to deal with....
thanks for the rant space. thanks to the chior and opposition forces.
since the customer really can't tell what that price really is(not being privy to company business figures), the decision by the customer is usually an emotional one of "i'd pay that." or "that's too much!", rather than a sensible one. hence, you have colonized peoples who can't participate because the colonizers don't want to pay fair prices for labor and materials(thus the need to outsource), lowering the price in the short term, but leaving a huge debt due in the long term(and i'm an american i should know...). luckily i will pass before it can all be recovered. unfortunately for some relation in the future, the debt will become payable in body and spirit.
those who complain about software prices are generally ignorant to the work that went into making the ware available. it needs to be paid for, just like the blood debt of our ancestors. when the note is paid, the earth will be seen as a place of bounty. until then, it will be shortages and famine for some, and luxury for others. the interest is mounting and making the debt more odious daily. the debt is easily payable if not ignored, but if ignored the collection agency is hell to deal with....
thanks for the rant space. thanks to the chior and opposition forces.
I agree to this as far as software developement and distribution in highly industrial environments is concerned (and the whats and hows of this have been nicely pointed out above).On 2005-03-19 15:34, stardust wrote:
...
This is a nonsense discussion.
...
Yet Nestor mentions an important point.
This is NOT related to crappy OS and Office software. In fact you're possibly better off without access to such productivity killers
and there are lot's of functional replacements at affordable prices.The 'real' software that can make a true difference are the large (and expensive) accounting and enterprise resource planning packages.
Possibly lower wages in '3rd world' countries can compensate a small part of the non-availability of those tools, but finally these countries are also a part of the global market.
And it's hard to imagine that you can effectively run a business with more than local meaning without such tools.
Those packages may not contain the brightest code one can imagine, but they bear a tremendous economic knowledge, and it puts you 2 steps back in competition if you cannot afford them.
On the other hand there's so much outsourcing and near, far and off-shoring
going on, that it's probably just a transitional stage we're currently watching. There's an inevitable knowledge transfer included (even if not appreciated in the first place, that those highly motivated 'cheap' workers will have the opportunity to get their share.
Watching our own education system and how (average) students perform, I'm even convinced they WILL MAKE their way - just as you will, Nestor
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-03-19 17:54 ]</font>
Kensuguro wrote:
Garyb had some interesting point. But it would be fair if that was the case. To price products so that we can pay salaries and leave something for further development. But it's not about that. It's about "make huge lots of money to investors".
Software industry is one of those highly overpaid compared to the quality. Over 50% of IT projects fail: either exceeds their deadlines and or budgets, or the end result isn't what was meant to be, or is of very low quality.
It's incredible.
Well, I'm a software developer myself, and really like my free cell phone and calls and internet connection at home and my better-than-average-salary and and and... the list goes on. But why's that? I really don't see. Software simply costs too much.
Okay, software costs too much, and companies are forced to lower their prices dramatically. And what this leads into? Deteriorated work conditions, diminished trade unions, outsourcing to non-developed countries etc.
Hell, I really hate this capitalism!
I strictly disagree! First law of capitalism: products cost as much as customers are willing to pay. If company sets prices higher than anyone will pay, they die. And if they set lower, they realize that they could ask more.Judging whether the price is right or not isn't really up to the customers.
Garyb had some interesting point. But it would be fair if that was the case. To price products so that we can pay salaries and leave something for further development. But it's not about that. It's about "make huge lots of money to investors".
Software industry is one of those highly overpaid compared to the quality. Over 50% of IT projects fail: either exceeds their deadlines and or budgets, or the end result isn't what was meant to be, or is of very low quality.
It's incredible.
Well, I'm a software developer myself, and really like my free cell phone and calls and internet connection at home and my better-than-average-salary and and and... the list goes on. But why's that? I really don't see. Software simply costs too much.
Okay, software costs too much, and companies are forced to lower their prices dramatically. And what this leads into? Deteriorated work conditions, diminished trade unions, outsourcing to non-developed countries etc.
Hell, I really hate this capitalism!
The market "works". It sets the price. It's up to governments to regulate things if companies get too greedy or monopolise markets.
Seriously I don't see a problem with software - especially in the audio industry. There are hosts and VSTi instruments for any budget from $0 up.
But in any category you care to name there are people willing to give their efforts to the public for nothing but a donation.
The internet is the world's most wonderful market and communications hub and software is one of its favoured children.
Living in Australia I've been able to closely collaborate with several companies in the US & Europe and got features added and bugs fixed.
It's a miracle of technology and I'm bloody happy.
Seriously I don't see a problem with software - especially in the audio industry. There are hosts and VSTi instruments for any budget from $0 up.
But in any category you care to name there are people willing to give their efforts to the public for nothing but a donation.
The internet is the world's most wonderful market and communications hub and software is one of its favoured children.
Living in Australia I've been able to closely collaborate with several companies in the US & Europe and got features added and bugs fixed.
It's a miracle of technology and I'm bloody happy.
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6688
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
I know you guys, that speaking about that is a bit silly, but I don't want to start any sort of word fight or something, I just will like to understand, because the world as a whole is depending more and more from software, it is no longer a choice. It is no longer something you decide you "want" to use as an alternative, it is a MUST. As I said, students are forced to have a computer and an important buch of software with them to succeed in their matters.
If some developers (as said here in this thread) are saying software is expensive, well... they probably know better than us about it.
There is one more point to take into accout, think for instance, about SFP SCOPE software versus Microsoft Word, if you compare the numver of copies sold. The compareson is like a drop of water agains the Yellow Reaver! I think the "amount" of copies sold is important too, as software is not like, for instance, paper. With paper you don't have the choice, you need more because you have used it and you cannot use it twice. Software requires ONE master copy. Developers work in ONE master copy and then they sell it to you as if such a software was the original copy.
I mean, the price you are paying, is for the original copy. It is ok, it is understandable as you are in fact, adquiring a perfect emulation of the original copy, but the spenses they have to do to duplicate software is practically nothing... It is very cheap to copy something to a CD and then present it to the public, with labels and all this, agains the price of software development.
I perfectly understand that the development of a piece of software is much, much more expensive than the copy they offer you, they can cost probable hundreds of thousands of dollars, like Word for instance. As we talk about software, I am also tendant to think certain software is very expensive as they are sold by millions, and millions, and millions... over the entire world.
Question:
¿Should every copy be sold as the original one when the work has been already done?
If some developers (as said here in this thread) are saying software is expensive, well... they probably know better than us about it.
There is one more point to take into accout, think for instance, about SFP SCOPE software versus Microsoft Word, if you compare the numver of copies sold. The compareson is like a drop of water agains the Yellow Reaver! I think the "amount" of copies sold is important too, as software is not like, for instance, paper. With paper you don't have the choice, you need more because you have used it and you cannot use it twice. Software requires ONE master copy. Developers work in ONE master copy and then they sell it to you as if such a software was the original copy.
I mean, the price you are paying, is for the original copy. It is ok, it is understandable as you are in fact, adquiring a perfect emulation of the original copy, but the spenses they have to do to duplicate software is practically nothing... It is very cheap to copy something to a CD and then present it to the public, with labels and all this, agains the price of software development.
I perfectly understand that the development of a piece of software is much, much more expensive than the copy they offer you, they can cost probable hundreds of thousands of dollars, like Word for instance. As we talk about software, I am also tendant to think certain software is very expensive as they are sold by millions, and millions, and millions... over the entire world.
Question:
¿Should every copy be sold as the original one when the work has been already done?
And which is this government, that does it? Bush's USA? Please, don't make me laugh.It's up to governments to regulate things if companies get too greedy or monopolise markets.
Indeed. Now in Finland there's a transition process to digital television. And why's that? All those new interactive features, better image quality, dozens of new channels? Oh please! Analog signal doesn't fit into capitalist's world: it's hard to control. It's easy to make analog electronics to use it. You lose control. In digital domain, you can have all the control. You can ask for more money for license. Digtal bozes are run be software. Software needs upgrades. New "features" every now and then. More sources of money.I just will like to understand, because the world as a whole is depending more and more from software, it is no longer a choice.
That's just one example.
Nestor, when pricing software, the company has an estimate, how many copies of software they will sell. Then they divide the real cost of making the software with amount of sold licences and here you have the minimum price for software.
And here's another point: if you've carefully read some license agreements, you really don't own the software copy. You have permission to use it. You don't pay for materia but a "license".
Many corporate software (like tools used to make software) have a "initial fee", say $2000 and in addition you will have to pay, say $500, every year as maintenance.
I'm not saying that software business is especially evil: making software really isn't that cheap (assuming that company meets it's responsibilities). I guess the driving force behing all companies is: how to make the biggest profit. It's not "we will do good products with fair price".
I've often critisizedhardware synth/workstation manufactures. Why they don't make one keyboard, that does it all? You'll have to buy many units to have all those cool features. And why's that? Selling more units is more profitable.
The costs of duplication etc are irrelevant. What you are paying for is the developers' time. Look at an expensive piece of hardware, for example. A lot of the time the cost of the components in the final mass-produced hardware is quite small compared to the retail cost of the full thing. However, there would have been a large amount of expenditure on R+D before the final design was built, and this needs to be paid for! Look at the amount of hardware based on Motorola 56k DSPs or indeed Sharcs.. these DSPs are pretty cheap.. but the knowledge and experience required to make them work in a useful way and with good quality is expensive.
It's the same with software.. there's plenty of freeware around, but in general it doesn't really break any new ground. This is unsurprising as it takes a lot of blood, sweat, tears and TIME to write something groundbreaking.
The bottom line is what you need to do and to what depth. If you don't need good sound quality, you will be happy with Synthedit plugins and other generic freebies (I don't mean to generalise here.. there are some very cool, innovative SE creations out there which put many commercial plugins to shame) but don't expect a world-class sound. If you want decent sound and performance, be it from software or hardware, you gotta pay for it
Whether sound quality matters enough is up to you... but I haven't come across many people using free plugins instead of Eventides or high end plugins like Sonalksis etc, given the choice.
It's the same with software.. there's plenty of freeware around, but in general it doesn't really break any new ground. This is unsurprising as it takes a lot of blood, sweat, tears and TIME to write something groundbreaking.
The bottom line is what you need to do and to what depth. If you don't need good sound quality, you will be happy with Synthedit plugins and other generic freebies (I don't mean to generalise here.. there are some very cool, innovative SE creations out there which put many commercial plugins to shame) but don't expect a world-class sound. If you want decent sound and performance, be it from software or hardware, you gotta pay for it
Whether sound quality matters enough is up to you... but I haven't come across many people using free plugins instead of Eventides or high end plugins like Sonalksis etc, given the choice.Having different units give you more flexibility and expandability. If you have everything in one unit and you want to change one aspect of it, then you're pretty much out of luck.I've often critisizedhardware synth/workstation manufactures. Why they don't make one keyboard, that does it all? You'll have to buy many units to have all those cool features. And why's that? Selling more units is more profitable.
There is one device which can pretty much 'do it all' - the computer. However, if you limit yourself to just that one device to make your music, then the final output is going to be pretty limited in terms of the tonal palette, and also in terms of the creative working methods used to make it.
Compare the following companies:
1. Creative Labs Inc
2. Eventide
One of these companies charges an extremely high amount of money for its products, and the other doesn't. No further explanation necessary here... I'll let you work it out for yourself