Skip to main content

Can mainstream software prices hold?

As I have mentioned earlier I have recently started using an iPad as my 'away' computer - and does everything I need much better than any compact laptop/netbook.

One particular app on the iPad has got me thinking seriously about the way software for 'real' computers is priced, and whether this pricing can hold. What you have to remember with software is that the pricing (like for ebooks) is almost entirely arbitrary. Although there is a big development cost, the unit production cost is minimal - pricing is a marketing decision. Obviously if the price is lower you have to sell more units to pay off your development costs - but then you may well succeed because they are cheaper.

Up to now having two platforms, PC and Mac has done little to drive down the cost of programs, because most people have one or the other, so there is little competitive effect. However, if someone has, say, a PC and an iPad, then there is more opportunity for comparison and resultant impact on pricing.

I use mind mapping software, both for note taking and to produce handouts for seminars. The good mind mapping software on the PC/Mac isn't particularly cheap. My personal favourite is MindManager, which is very much the Microsoft Office of mind mappers and a very powerful application. It comes in at a whopping £238.80. Another strong contender is iMindMap which is linked to the man who coined the term 'mind map' (though he didn't invent concept mapping), Tony Buzan. A copy of iMindMap will set you back between £29 for the basic 'Elements' version and £199 for the 'Ultimate' version.

Now the iPad is a very natural environment for mind mapping, and I just had to get a piece of mind mapping software. I chose iThoughts, which looks one of the best mind mapping apps (there are others at 59p), produces beautiful mind maps and can export files to all the major software as well as PDFs and images. Now that cost £5.99. That's not a typo - just £5.99. Interestingly iMindMap also has an iPad edition, but that costs £19.99.

Admittedly iThoughts has less function than the big boys on a PC/Mac - but it's function I never use. I can do everything I want at a fraction of the cost, much easier than I can on a PC. Of course there have always been cheap and cheerful programs for PCs. In fact there is a free mind mapping program, Freemind. But most cheap software for the old platforms looks just that. Cheap. The big difference is that a good iPad app has to be as good looking and usable as a top notch PC program at a fraction of the price.

Can the big boys go on charging large amounts when we can do the same thing for a fraction of the cost elsewhere? We shall see. But my suspicion is that PC and Mac software pricing is going to tend downwards. It will still be dearer than the iPad, but not by the kind of factors we see today.

Comments

  1. As a purveyor of a big software system, I totally agree with you; I have much ruder words to describe the effect ranging from 4* words upwards. Why should anyone or any business write anything new these days unless there's a very clear niche and an easy way of getting the market to take it up quickly and efficiently.

    I have many ideas for developing our software but can't find the right mix of rewrite/redesign/rethink to fit our investors' needs for a quick return.

    Methinks we (and probably a lot of other software companies) need your CUL skills.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not quite sure what you are saying Ian - are you celebrating this effect, or bemoaning it?

    Either way, CUL services entirely available at very reasonable prices - reducing all the time.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou