4 ms·

This is spot on. Thanks to the App Store, the days of paying $30+ for boxed software and paying again every year or so for version n+1 (assuming it comes out a

by ben1040 14y ago

This is spot on. Thanks to the App Store, the days of paying $30+ for boxed software and paying again every year or so for version n+1 (assuming it comes out at all) are pretty far back in the rear view mirror now. I paid $10 for Sparrow and got far more than $10 in value from it. So while I am disappointed that the best email app I have seen is EOL'd now I did get a decent value and I can't complain a whole lot. I am no worse off than had I bought a boxed copy of software with no promise for updates ever. I would have paid $30 up front for Sparrow and purchased a large feature release for that price later down the line. Happily. That is a price far more in line with the value delivered. How do we recalibrate people's expectations about the value of software back to pre-2008 levels? Not everything can or should cost a buck.

kenjackson 14y ago
"Not everything can or should cost a buck." When I talk to many developers they tell me that everything should be free. How do you recalibrate the consumer's perception of the value of software, when so many developers don't value software either?
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I guess they are meaning "free as in freedom" which is something that comes up time and time again thanks to the FSFs insistence on using poor wording. I don't think that developers don't "value" software. It would be a push to suggest that people who use Linux,Apache or Emacs don't see any "value" to them. I'm sure if they though about it they could probably assign a high dollar amount that would reflect the utility they receive from these programs. Personally I don't have a problem either paying for a commercial software or using an open source alternative. It's when an application is either free (as in $0 or outrageously cheap) and closed source and I can't "get" the developer's business model that I would be very hesitant to rely on it.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    > I guess they are meaning "free as in freedom" Not necessarily. Most of the software developers use - from IDEs/editors, through version control, synchronization, web stack, to server software and even the basic but important tools like ls or grep - is free. Free as in "free beer". We are used to get tremendous value for free. We are used to give away value for free. And I'm not surprised that many developers (myself included) like this utopia, even if it is not currently sustainable.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      Open source is a sustainable way of making software a zero money cost though. The contract is basically that they allow you to use the software on the basis that you might give some value back in the form of patches, bug reports or even just asking intelligent questions on their forum or paying for commercial support. Even if you don't they don't really lose anything. A huge amount of OSS is fairly "developer facing" too, with possible exceptions of stuff like firefox of VLC (few people would imagine paying for a media player or browser today). I agree though that bad FOSS evangelism may be partly to blame, if you tell everyone to "use Linux because it is free, all software should be free!" without explaining that price not the important part of the equation and you are a software developer yourself then I guess you can't be too surprised if people see that as endorsement to pirate Photoshop.
- briandear 14y ago
  Exactly! When the torrentfreak folks start bitching about Kim Dotcom's problems, I think about that very point. How can anyone expect to be paid for their labor in creating something while at the same time arguing for wholesale software/music/movie theft under the shoddy justification that the marginal cost of digital content is nearly zero.
Zirro 14y ago
"How do we recalibrate people's expectations about the value of software back to pre-2008 levels?" As someone who wasn't quite old enough to be interested in following this when it happened, I feel the need to ask: Why did the App Store affect pre-2008 price-levels as much as it did? Were most apps this cheap at the launch of the App Store, or did it lower over the year(s)? Did Apple set any guidelines for the price-levels of apps, thus creating the levels we're seeing today, or was it entirely up to the developers?
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  The early days of the App Store were a gold rush. People were able to make a good chunk of money off a $5 app. That brought in investment dollars (angel or internal corporate development) that allowed prices to be lowered because there was less direct need to have revenue and costs line up. Over time, that pushed the prices down lower. Customers became accustomed to getting an amazing app for $0.99 (or even free), so they complain at best and refuse to buy at worst if the price is much higher. Apple never provided any guidelines on pricing. The market went where it wanted to.
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    I know I'm not the only one, but I rarely buy iphone/ios apps, mostly because there's often no trial process, and there's no return/refund policy. Yes, it might get abused, but give vendors the ability to do more (time limited trials, functional trials with in-app upgrades, etc). Some vendors try to provide this, but... they're fighting against Apple App Store policies. Yes, you can argue "hey, it's just $x" ($2? $1? $3?) Over time, those tend to add up, and when there's no recourse, I'd rather just not participate much.
- gyardley 14y ago
  Prices were slightly higher at launch, with $4.99 and $9.99 being fairly common price points. (Super Monkey Ball, the first heavily-promoted game I can recall, was $9.99.) But by Christmas 2008, less than a year later, prices were about what they were today. In my opinion / recollection, prices dropped because some developers experimented and discovered that they could make more money at $0.99 - the increased unit sales more than made up for it. Of course, those increased unit sales were partly because they were one of the few quality applications selling at $0.99 - and once the other developers saw how the $0.99 apps were cannibalizing their $4.99 sales, they followed along to compete. I don't recall Apple influencing pricing publicly, but god knows if they had any discussions with their initial, pre-announcement partners. It wouldn't surprise me if they pushed Sega to get Super Monkey Ball out at $9.99, since it sold for much more than this on earlier game platforms, but that's just me speculating.
Jach 14y ago
> Thanks to the App Store, the days of paying $30+ for boxed software and paying again every year or so for version n+1 (assuming it comes out at all) are pretty far back in the rear view mirror now. I think this is overblown. There are a lot of business models, many that don't revolve around app-store-like freemium or one-time $1 purchases. They are waiting to be used. In the enterprise world, I don't think the app store has even made a dent in purchasing decisions.
wensing 14y ago
How do we recalibrate people's expectations about the value of software back to pre-2008 levels? One suggestion: Stop trying to push the cutting edge forward and start delivering value to people in the technical stone ages. In other words: B2B. Stop focusing on entertainment or social value and make something that actually makes or saves money. People are still paying $12,000 per seat per year for the Bloomberg Terminal. Make another one of those.

by ben1040 14y ago

kenjackson 14y ago

"Not everything can or should cost a buck." When I talk to many developers they tell me that everything should be free. How do you recalibrate the consumer's perception of the value of software, when so many developers don't value software either?

jiggy2011 14y ago
I guess they are meaning "free as in freedom" which is something that comes up time and time again thanks to the FSFs insistence on using poor wording. I don't think that developers don't "value" software. It would be a push to suggest that people who use Linux,Apache or Emacs don't see any "value" to them. I'm sure if they though about it they could probably assign a high dollar amount that would reflect the utility they receive from these programs. Personally I don't have a problem either paying for a commercial software or using an open source alternative. It's when an application is either free (as in $0 or outrageously cheap) and closed source and I can't "get" the developer's business model that I would be very hesitant to rely on it.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  > I guess they are meaning "free as in freedom" Not necessarily. Most of the software developers use - from IDEs/editors, through version control, synchronization, web stack, to server software and even the basic but important tools like ls or grep - is free. Free as in "free beer". We are used to get tremendous value for free. We are used to give away value for free. And I'm not surprised that many developers (myself included) like this utopia, even if it is not currently sustainable.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Open source is a sustainable way of making software a zero money cost though. The contract is basically that they allow you to use the software on the basis that you might give some value back in the form of patches, bug reports or even just asking intelligent questions on their forum or paying for commercial support. Even if you don't they don't really lose anything. A huge amount of OSS is fairly "developer facing" too, with possible exceptions of stuff like firefox of VLC (few people would imagine paying for a media player or browser today). I agree though that bad FOSS evangelism may be partly to blame, if you tell everyone to "use Linux because it is free, all software should be free!" without explaining that price not the important part of the equation and you are a software developer yourself then I guess you can't be too surprised if people see that as endorsement to pirate Photoshop.
briandear 14y ago
Exactly! When the torrentfreak folks start bitching about Kim Dotcom's problems, I think about that very point. How can anyone expect to be paid for their labor in creating something while at the same time arguing for wholesale software/music/movie theft under the shoddy justification that the marginal cost of digital content is nearly zero.

Zirro 14y ago

"How do we recalibrate people's expectations about the value of software back to pre-2008 levels?" As someone who wasn't quite old enough to be interested in following this when it happened, I feel the need to ask: Why did the App Store affect pre-2008 price-levels as much as it did? Were most apps this cheap at the launch of the App Store, or did it lower over the year(s)? Did Apple set any guidelines for the price-levels of apps, thus creating the levels we're seeing today, or was it entirely up to the developers?

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
The early days of the App Store were a gold rush. People were able to make a good chunk of money off a $5 app. That brought in investment dollars (angel or internal corporate development) that allowed prices to be lowered because there was less direct need to have revenue and costs line up. Over time, that pushed the prices down lower. Customers became accustomed to getting an amazing app for $0.99 (or even free), so they complain at best and refuse to buy at worst if the price is much higher. Apple never provided any guidelines on pricing. The market went where it wanted to.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  I know I'm not the only one, but I rarely buy iphone/ios apps, mostly because there's often no trial process, and there's no return/refund policy. Yes, it might get abused, but give vendors the ability to do more (time limited trials, functional trials with in-app upgrades, etc). Some vendors try to provide this, but... they're fighting against Apple App Store policies. Yes, you can argue "hey, it's just $x" ($2? $1? $3?) Over time, those tend to add up, and when there's no recourse, I'd rather just not participate much.
gyardley 14y ago
Prices were slightly higher at launch, with $4.99 and $9.99 being fairly common price points. (Super Monkey Ball, the first heavily-promoted game I can recall, was $9.99.) But by Christmas 2008, less than a year later, prices were about what they were today. In my opinion / recollection, prices dropped because some developers experimented and discovered that they could make more money at $0.99 - the increased unit sales more than made up for it. Of course, those increased unit sales were partly because they were one of the few quality applications selling at $0.99 - and once the other developers saw how the $0.99 apps were cannibalizing their $4.99 sales, they followed along to compete. I don't recall Apple influencing pricing publicly, but god knows if they had any discussions with their initial, pre-announcement partners. It wouldn't surprise me if they pushed Sega to get Super Monkey Ball out at $9.99, since it sold for much more than this on earlier game platforms, but that's just me speculating.

Jach 14y ago

> Thanks to the App Store, the days of paying $30+ for boxed software and paying again every year or so for version n+1 (assuming it comes out at all) are pretty far back in the rear view mirror now. I think this is overblown. There are a lot of business models, many that don't revolve around app-store-like freemium or one-time $1 purchases. They are waiting to be used. In the enterprise world, I don't think the app store has even made a dent in purchasing decisions.

wensing 14y ago

How do we recalibrate people's expectations about the value of software back to pre-2008 levels? One suggestion: Stop trying to push the cutting edge forward and start delivering value to people in the technical stone ages. In other words: B2B. Stop focusing on entertainment or social value and make something that actually makes or saves money. People are still paying $12,000 per seat per year for the Bloomberg Terminal. Make another one of those.