Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1


    Member Since
    Mar 23, 2006
    Location
    Alhambra, CA
    Posts
    104
    I just dont understand what constitutes a 499.99+ price for programs!
    Photoshop, Final Cut...etc. are all so expensive. Don't get me wrong though, I absolutely love the programs! But for 499.99+ its just hard to afford it. All it is, is fancy packaging and a CD.

    With stuff like the iPod, or videogame consoles you know why it cost that much because of manufacturing, the materials used to make it, and the actual hardware inside.

    Case in point: Was taking a Lightwave 3D class and my teacher told me I had to buy the program if I wanted to get ahead in the class. So I said, "Sure, how much do they run?"

    "With a discount? $700." He replied.

    "And that's WITH the discount?" Said I.

    /rant.

  2. #2


    Member Since
    Sep 30, 2004
    Posts
    3,378
    edit: bad example, I'll think of a better one

  3. #3

    macAttack's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 23, 2005
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    1,509
    Specs:
    iBook
    thing about this, when was the last time you sat down and made a photoshop like application in a couple of hours days or weeks? you can't. you have to use lots of time and development, you don't just throw these together. and how often have talked to someone for tech support? and all the problems that they have to fix each day and release with the application. It takes a long time to make a complex app.

  4. #4

    claudius753's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 11, 2005
    Posts
    264
    Specs:
    15" MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz/4 GB/500 GB
    In addition to what macAttack said, not only do these apps take a lot of man hours to code and support, but some also have a limited audience. Final Cut is hella complex, and it is only for Mac, a fairly small audience to begin with, and then only professionals will be likely to buy it. The media and packaging might cost a dollar, but the actual app might have cost 1 million dollars to produce. If they only expect to sell 1,300 copies, they would have to sell it at $770 to just break even in our hypothetical world, and to make a profit, they need to sell it at an even higher price.
    Nathan Sweeney

    Don't forget to use the User Reputation System if someone helps you out!
    Come and help save lives by Folding

  5. #5

    coach_z's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location
    North NJ
    Posts
    3,169
    Specs:
    i dont have no mac's
    in addition to the well noted reasons above....people use FCP and photoshop in order to make art and films and to make lots and lots and lots and lots of money....the rest of the people around unfortunately pirate their copies
    -chris
    MoTM honor roll...
    when?
    i dont remember

  6. #6

    inflexion's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 12, 2005
    Location
    /home/sheffield/UK
    Posts
    1,278
    Specs:
    12" 1Ghz PB 768Mb 10.4.5 30Gb Video iPod 40Gb 3G iPod 1Gb iPod Shuffle
    500 is cheap!! CS2 Suite is £999 which closer to $2000

    Think about it a development team of 20 people workin on it for 2 years all doing 38 hours a week on (im guessing now) $30 an hour.

    You do the maths to work out how much it costs to physically make something like FCP and then ask yourself. Would you sell it for less and hope that more people bought it or sell it at a higher price knowing your target market will find the price reasonable considering the amount of money they will make from it themselfs


    Apple, think different

  7. #7
    lil
    Guest
    Frankly for the quality of Adobe Creative Suite 2 Standard--it is worth every penny. If you want to create professional work; you need professional level software.

    If you want to make money from your creative works, you need capable software.

    So IMHO, I paid £380 for CS2 Suite Std (upgrade from Photoshop 7) and it was worth every penny. That said, I was very lucky to get Photoshop 3 with my IIsi in 1995 and so I have been able to purchase upgrades since.

    For the amount o enjoyment and use I get out of Illustratr, InDesign and Photoshop every day at work and at home it was more than worth the money!

    Vicky

  8. #8
    Kettle
    Guest
    A new copy of AutoCAD 2006 will run you about 5000 CD. These programs are expensive because they are worth it. They do a lot more then your standard app, you're just spoiled because of pirated copies.

  9. #9

    Aptmunich's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 09, 2004
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    9,073
    Specs:
    Aluminium Macbook 2.4 Ghz 4GB RAM, SSD 24" Samsung Display, iPhone 4, iPad 2
    It is slightly mind-boggling at first:

    iLife can do sooo much and costs 78$.
    Photoshop is much more limited and specific in scope and costs >10x that.

    But as others have said: It's all about the size of the audience and scope of features: Millions of people will buy iLife, but only a fraction of them would buy Photoshop.

  10. #10

    Say_Cheese's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location
    High Wycombe, Just outside London, England
    Posts
    385
    Specs:
    20" iMac 2.0Ghz, 2Gb RAM Early 2006, 30Gb iPod 5th Gen. 15" MacBookPro, 2.33GHz
    What about MS Office for Mac? Surely loads of people buy that but they still insist on selling it for £349. MS can't even use the argument that they had to spend hours developing it as they already have the basics in the PC version.

  11. #11
    tortoise
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Say_Cheese
    MS can't even use the argument that they had to spend hours developing it as they already have the basics in the PC version.
    The PC version of Office is COM based. They had to completely, 100% rewrite it for the Macintosh.

    How much something sells for has almost nothing to do with how much it cost to make it. How much something sells for is based on what the market is willing to pay for it.

    Take this program you've surely never heard of, the Satellite Toolkit by Analytical Graphics. STK costs $30,000 for ONE license. You want to run STK on two computers? that's $60,000, thank you very much.

    Why is it so expensive? STK is primarily used to model launching of satellites. When a company needs to launch a new satellite, they need to get it right the first time. A faulty launch or a launch that sends the satellite into a different trajectory than needed is going to cost them potentially millions of dollars. Suddenly that $30,000 sounds like a bargain.

    Sure a design shop could use the GIMP instead of Photoshop. It's free, and barring pantone support, mostly does what Photoshop does. But the loss of productivity in its poor interface, its less stable and less efficient code, its lack of any integration with any other design app like InDesign or Illustrator, not to mention lack of integration with MacOS, suddenly that free price tag doesn't look so great and $500 for PS sounds wonderful.

    If you do graphics work day in and day out, and it's the livelyhood of your profession, you're very willing to pay the price to get the real tools to do it.

  12. #12

    Les Exposé's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 29, 2006
    Posts
    19
    I think they should jack up the Price for businesses and lower the price for consumers.

    It does go on how many copies are sold.
    Some games take 2 or more years to develop and have massive teams working on them but because the sell so many copies they can sell them for $100 AUD.

    Something like Photoshop is a great price for a something like a design company.
    However for a consumer its a rip off.
    Think about it when they release CS2 90% of the work is already done from CS and CS had 90% of the work done from Photoshop 7 (if you get what i am on about).

    they are not making a whole new program they just add a tool and feature, plug in what ever here and there and making it look better.

    Thats why photoshop is not universal because they have to rewrite the whole thing which will take a long time but in the same instance they know what they are making so there is not so much R&D.

  13. #13
    tortoise
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Exposé
    Something like Photoshop is a great price for a something like a design company.
    However for a consumer its a rip off.
    It's also not intended for a consumer. What does a regular joe need with Photoshop? Standard consumer oriented graphic apps will do 99% of what the consumer needs. A typical stove and oven installed in someone's kitchen at home costs a **** of a lot less than what you'd find in the kitchen of a nice restaurant.

    Think about it when they release CS2 90% of the work is already done from CS and CS had 90% of the work done from Photoshop 7 (if you get what i am on about).
    Yes, and if you have CS you can get CS2 at an ungrade price.

    Thats why photoshop is not universal because they have to rewrite the whole thing which will take a long time but in the same instance they know what they are making so there is not so much R&D.
    They don't have to rewrite PS to be universal. I bet they have to touch very little code. It's more a matter of their build environment and marketing. Don't forget an x86 version of Photoshop has been around for years (on that *other* OS that Billy Boy likes to promote! )

  14. #14
    lil
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Say_Cheese
    What about MS Office for Mac? Surely loads of people buy that but they still insist on selling it for £349. MS can't even use the argument that they had to spend hours developing it as they already have the basics in the PC version.
    I take it you remember or know about how abysmal MS Office 4 for the Mac was?

    No? Well; that was more or less a straight port from the PC, interface and just about the whole kaboodle—and was about the most dire set of programs to ever inflict themselves on the Mac. They were truly awful sluggish and hogging applications that killed performance dead.

    Word 6 was dire compared to the nice and useful Word 5.1.

    Thankfully Microsoft learnt their lesson and by 2001 we had a fairly Mac alike suite again, with 2004—they are almost there.

    This is why 'straight ports' of technology are never a good thing, especially where MS is concerned (MS Windows Media Player 9 for Mac anybody? )

    :flower:

    Vicky

  15. #15
    lil
    Guest
    And to add, maybe I'm an exception to the rule here. I look at my Mac and find actually there isn't *loads* of software. On the commercial side of things I find:

    * Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger Family Pack (since I have two Macs)
    * Adobe Creative Suite 2 Standard (upgraded from Photoshop 7, which was upgraded from Photoshop 5, which was upgraded from Photoshop 3...)
    * Corel Painter IX
    * iLife '06
    * Microsoft Office 2004 Standard

    And that's it. I evidently didn't get that lot all in one go either, but I saved long enough for each product. I have a few registered shareware apps like Quicktime Pro, RapidWeaver--uhh, that's it in fact and that is all I use.

    Generally speaking—I would assume that people don't use 100s or even 20 big applications, but rather have a close knit set of 10 or so apps. In my case that would be Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Word, Excel, RapidWeaver, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and Corel Painter.

    The more important thing is the data and for that there are 1000s of files. So really, if you were to save long and hard enough if you have to, the expenditure on software isn't necessarily that high. Especially if you are anticipating to earn something back from that.

    Most of all, having nice boxes and manuals, and support from the publishing house really clinches the deal for me.

    In all, I have on the above software spent around £1100 tops; not much considering how much I use and value the software, and I'm not one for buying the latest version unless there is enough to compel me to do so.

    Vicky

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-29-2014, 06:02 PM
  2. Dont Understand The Mac File System
    By KLANG01 in forum Switcher Hangout
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-10-2012, 07:34 PM
  3. Dont understand why I only have 6.95 GB left from 160 GB
    By cooljoe815 in forum Apple Desktops
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-20-2005, 12:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •