Is All Software Overpriced?
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:32 pmIs All Software Overpriced?
05-27-11 - by Dario
Microsoft just pointed out that, in China, it only makes 5% of the money it makes in the US, because of piracy… though both countries have similar PC sales. That news got my attention, because I’ve been wondering for a while now if all PC/Mac software may be fundamentally overpriced.
Here’s the thinking:
Most paid computer software is so far above the impulse-buy range, that, even in countries with money, most people have to REALLY think about if they want something… meaning also that most people just don’t buy anything. (for example: do you want to pay $30 for some utility that you’ll use for 2 days, then never touch again? Probably not. You’ll likely either use BitTorrent, or do without. Similarly, how’bout paying $120 for Photoshop Elements, when you aren’t even sure if you’ll be using it a year from now? What about $700 for the FULL Photoshop (which is quite similar to Elements in features, and has a less attractive interface)? Same story. Chances are you’ll either do without, or use BitTorrent. Or find a free alternative.)
… and, when you think about this stuff, another weird question comes up: When it comes to utilities, and other non-essentials, why is it that if it isn’t free, it’s between $25-50?? (they just skip right over the range where I’d actually buy it. — Hello free apps.)
-
I first formed this opinion some years ago. At the time, I was only considering all the “rich” Americans, not even realizing yet that most places had even less money than here… like in China, where you see that people just aren’t putting out any money for software.
I think if most programs were an impulse-buy ($1-12, but especially in the lower range), and if this were a consciously known thing, several things would happen: people would mass-consume, software developers would make more money, and piracy would be a lot smaller. (I’m not entirely certain, however, how quickly cultures that are *addicted* to piracy would give it up. Perhaps a good app store would gradually wean them off, like Steam probably does with gamer pirates (to some degree)).
I’ll point out how iTunes attracts people with its easy-sounding $1 per song, and Steam attracts gamers with its crazy fire-sales (75-90% off lots of games, all the time, minus new releases). And, most of all, smartphone app stores have this powerful, almost distracting sense of accessibility that makes buying cheap software a complete joy… and an unfortunate addiction, for many.
I think the primary reason that smartphone apps exploded was just because of how much you CARED about the whole thing, due to everything being so easy to get. (Smartphone app stores are like candy stores.) When most apps are either an impulse buy or free, it makes you want to stick around, and always go see what new apps you can try out, just because you CAN.
(To be fair, there are a few other important factors, all necessary for the success of smartphone apps, but I’m just highlighting what I think is the single largest one. If most paid smartphone apps were between $10-30, all the interest would shift over to whatever’s free, and the whole experience would take a slide… That slide, I think, would also result in less free apps being made altogether (and they’d be of lesser quality). (btw, note to anyone who only downloads free smartphone apps: you’re missing out.)
-
Back to computer apps, we have a few more issues, I think:
With expensive software, people can’t be very curious at all, and get into things “just because”… nor can they afford to buy many curiosities. Now, if someone was walking by a computer section in a store, and saw a box that said you could easily rebuild your house in 3d, with really good graphics, for $5, they might just pick that up. They could have some fun. (in fact, people all over the place might pick that up…) Now, if you bumped that up to $25, most people would probably glance away after a second, just thinking, “Nah”, or they’d have to think about it really deeply.
As another example, I think a promising-looking, powerful $5 movie-editor would probably snag an incredible volume of people, worldwide; people who have been teetering on the brink of getting into editing, and needing only a tiny nudge to get going. (I’m sure there are plenty of people – like students wanting to make films over summer – who’d like to upgrade from Windows Movie Maker.) Trouble is, what most people have come to know and want are really-gotta-think-about-it priced programs like Final Cut, Sony Vegas, and Adobe Premiere (with their light versions costing $170, $50, and $85). Each of these has a “full”, pro version for $900, $530, and $700. (They seem unfairly priced for professionals/studios. In the full versions, you’re seeing maybe 20-35% feature improvement, for somewhere around 700% more cost. Sony Vegas lowers its price to $340 for students and non-profit organizations, but not non-profit individuals (like me, for instance)).
(Quick note: bear in mind that when a “pro” version of a program offers only 20-35% more features, it’s still better than it sounds. On paper, it doesn’t look like much, but, for someone who spends his life using these apps, details really matter. A genuine pro would NOT want to spend his career using a light version, and they know this… therefor, they’re really trapped into paying the extra dough, because the details add up to saving loads of time.)
If I’m right, all of this pricing stuff has negative effects on the world, which I’ll summarize here:
– It prevents the majority of computer users out there from really getting INTO software (which, quite importantly, slows down the developmental progress of the world).
– It prevents software developers from making more money, which prevents them from igniting a surge in new development. If PC software saw the boom that smartphones apps did, there’d probably be a lot more volume of stuff being made, which would increase competition. More competition means more of a drive to make apps of higher quality (which, again, speeds up the progress of our race. 85% of the world lives in a developing country (places building up – not impoverished), and they need all the help they can get in modernizing).
-
Anyway, so, that’s my little theory (which, remember, is just speculation). I’ve thought very similarly about cameras, and a few other things. (I’m wondering if the pricing of all this stuff is a matrix of monkey-see-monkey-do.)
Source :http://www.deefrag.com/
Someone who makes total sense on software.
05-27-11 - by Dario
Microsoft just pointed out that, in China, it only makes 5% of the money it makes in the US, because of piracy… though both countries have similar PC sales. That news got my attention, because I’ve been wondering for a while now if all PC/Mac software may be fundamentally overpriced.
Here’s the thinking:
Most paid computer software is so far above the impulse-buy range, that, even in countries with money, most people have to REALLY think about if they want something… meaning also that most people just don’t buy anything. (for example: do you want to pay $30 for some utility that you’ll use for 2 days, then never touch again? Probably not. You’ll likely either use BitTorrent, or do without. Similarly, how’bout paying $120 for Photoshop Elements, when you aren’t even sure if you’ll be using it a year from now? What about $700 for the FULL Photoshop (which is quite similar to Elements in features, and has a less attractive interface)? Same story. Chances are you’ll either do without, or use BitTorrent. Or find a free alternative.)
… and, when you think about this stuff, another weird question comes up: When it comes to utilities, and other non-essentials, why is it that if it isn’t free, it’s between $25-50?? (they just skip right over the range where I’d actually buy it. — Hello free apps.)
-
I first formed this opinion some years ago. At the time, I was only considering all the “rich” Americans, not even realizing yet that most places had even less money than here… like in China, where you see that people just aren’t putting out any money for software.
I think if most programs were an impulse-buy ($1-12, but especially in the lower range), and if this were a consciously known thing, several things would happen: people would mass-consume, software developers would make more money, and piracy would be a lot smaller. (I’m not entirely certain, however, how quickly cultures that are *addicted* to piracy would give it up. Perhaps a good app store would gradually wean them off, like Steam probably does with gamer pirates (to some degree)).
I’ll point out how iTunes attracts people with its easy-sounding $1 per song, and Steam attracts gamers with its crazy fire-sales (75-90% off lots of games, all the time, minus new releases). And, most of all, smartphone app stores have this powerful, almost distracting sense of accessibility that makes buying cheap software a complete joy… and an unfortunate addiction, for many.
I think the primary reason that smartphone apps exploded was just because of how much you CARED about the whole thing, due to everything being so easy to get. (Smartphone app stores are like candy stores.) When most apps are either an impulse buy or free, it makes you want to stick around, and always go see what new apps you can try out, just because you CAN.
(To be fair, there are a few other important factors, all necessary for the success of smartphone apps, but I’m just highlighting what I think is the single largest one. If most paid smartphone apps were between $10-30, all the interest would shift over to whatever’s free, and the whole experience would take a slide… That slide, I think, would also result in less free apps being made altogether (and they’d be of lesser quality). (btw, note to anyone who only downloads free smartphone apps: you’re missing out.)
-
Back to computer apps, we have a few more issues, I think:
With expensive software, people can’t be very curious at all, and get into things “just because”… nor can they afford to buy many curiosities. Now, if someone was walking by a computer section in a store, and saw a box that said you could easily rebuild your house in 3d, with really good graphics, for $5, they might just pick that up. They could have some fun. (in fact, people all over the place might pick that up…) Now, if you bumped that up to $25, most people would probably glance away after a second, just thinking, “Nah”, or they’d have to think about it really deeply.
As another example, I think a promising-looking, powerful $5 movie-editor would probably snag an incredible volume of people, worldwide; people who have been teetering on the brink of getting into editing, and needing only a tiny nudge to get going. (I’m sure there are plenty of people – like students wanting to make films over summer – who’d like to upgrade from Windows Movie Maker.) Trouble is, what most people have come to know and want are really-gotta-think-about-it priced programs like Final Cut, Sony Vegas, and Adobe Premiere (with their light versions costing $170, $50, and $85). Each of these has a “full”, pro version for $900, $530, and $700. (They seem unfairly priced for professionals/studios. In the full versions, you’re seeing maybe 20-35% feature improvement, for somewhere around 700% more cost. Sony Vegas lowers its price to $340 for students and non-profit organizations, but not non-profit individuals (like me, for instance)).
(Quick note: bear in mind that when a “pro” version of a program offers only 20-35% more features, it’s still better than it sounds. On paper, it doesn’t look like much, but, for someone who spends his life using these apps, details really matter. A genuine pro would NOT want to spend his career using a light version, and they know this… therefor, they’re really trapped into paying the extra dough, because the details add up to saving loads of time.)
If I’m right, all of this pricing stuff has negative effects on the world, which I’ll summarize here:
– It prevents the majority of computer users out there from really getting INTO software (which, quite importantly, slows down the developmental progress of the world).
– It prevents software developers from making more money, which prevents them from igniting a surge in new development. If PC software saw the boom that smartphones apps did, there’d probably be a lot more volume of stuff being made, which would increase competition. More competition means more of a drive to make apps of higher quality (which, again, speeds up the progress of our race. 85% of the world lives in a developing country (places building up – not impoverished), and they need all the help they can get in modernizing).
-
Anyway, so, that’s my little theory (which, remember, is just speculation). I’ve thought very similarly about cameras, and a few other things. (I’m wondering if the pricing of all this stuff is a matrix of monkey-see-monkey-do.)
Source :http://www.deefrag.com/
Someone who makes total sense on software.