Apple Justifies iLife Price Tag

CameronWolf writes "Just in case there was any doubt about Apple computers decision to sell applications they used to give away, I got this response, via email, from Apple upon my enquiry: 'As the iLife applications have become increasingly integrated it has become more and more important for a user to have all of the "correct" versions on their Mac at once, working together, giving a unified user experience. This is one of the main reasons we've decided to offer iLife in suite form only. In addition, for iLife users who want the latest and greatest applications on their Macs, the iLife suite is priced very affordably.' Apple are running an upgrade scheme for those who bought a qualifying Mac after Jan 6th. Too bad I just had to have the iBook G4 the second it was released!" For those who used only the free iLife apps before -- those without SuperDrives -- this reason doesn't make any sense. If the goal were really to make sure you had the latest versions, they could simply make the latest iMovie require the latest iDVD.

Comments

Does this make any sense?

[Sklivvz]

I just don't understand what the poster is talking about.
1) Apple now sells software which used to be free beforehand.
2) Poster asks for explanation from Apple
3) Answer explains why they sell the software in a suit as opposed to single apps, but now why they are now selling what used to be free
4) Story gets on Slashdot

So why is Apple charging for these products? Where's the news here?

so people are complaining?

[Grand]

so people are complaining they are offering 5 apps in a bundle for 50.00, when apple COULD go and sell them individually for 30-50 dollars. Yes they were free, but 50 dollars is nothing to complain about.

When was the last time you paid $50...

[Microsift]

...for four applications (since iTunes is free) that do as much as these do. I think most people would be willing to pay $40-50 for just one of these apps(if they needed it).

Also, if you have more than 1 computer that you want to install iLife on, you can buy a 5 user family license for $79.

Anyway, the real story should be that iLife is a bargain.

here's me trying really hard to care...

[Maelikai]

...nope, can't do it.

As a software person I just can't manage to work up any ire that Apple wants to be paid for some of the work they do.

Typical Apple Business Model

[hey!]

So, Apple charges the user for updates to its operating sytems and applications, but delivers capabilities that are attractive to the users.

This is typical for Apple. Not to bash MS, but it's useful to contrast Apple's situation with Microsofts. Apple's customers are its users, MS's customers are the OEMs and large IT operations.

Consequently , Apple updates have to pay for themselves, and give end users a sense of value received for their upgrade fee. MS updates simply have to keep the monopoly rolling so its core business continues to make money. MS would like home users and hobbyists to pay for upgrades and be happy with them, but in the grand scheme of things it is not all that important. Which is why you get update series like 95->98->98SE->ME.

In any closed source application, you can't have every possible permutation you might wish for. The owner has to package things so maintenance and marketing costs are reasonable, and that it provides a good value for its most important customers. It would be nice that if you only needed one tiny slice of the update you could buy it a la carte, but you have to accept that Apple is going to package their software in a way that maximizes revenue and reduces costs.

No problem

[eyeball]

I don't see a problem spending $50 for iLife, or for that matter, $130 (or so) for every next major OSX release. We pay for the latest and greatest video card, CPU, TV, Car, portable MP3 player, etc.. Why shouldn't software be the same?

Lots of "punish me harder" comments

[Gizzmonic]

I'm reading a lot of "that's okay, the apps are great" Mac apology here, and as a Mac user, I gotta say that it's a bad attitude to take.

Personally, I chose a Mac because I demanded more out of a computer. You pay more at the start, you pay more for system upgrades, but you get a machine that does exactly what you tell it (for the most part) and doesn't break for no reason.

I found the "yearly OS upgrade" strategy for Mac OS X pretty suspect. And now that the "iApps" are being pruned from the OS, how could they possibly justify $130 per annum?

Mac users, you don't have to take this. I recommend contacting Apple and telling them exactly how you feel about this. The OS price should drop to $50 if they're going to pull this, or there should be free upgrades to the iApps for at least a few years with the price of system software.

Then again, let's not forget the "chilling effect" that iApps have had on competitors. Safari kills MS internet explorer, iPhoto kills Photoshop Elements, etc...maybe charging for them will open up another window of opportunity for companies other than Apple to produce great Mac software. It seems like it's been awhile...

Re: iCal, iSync, and Safari are next

[MoneyT]

Except you're not paying to use it. iTunes still works for me. As does iMovie, iDVD and iPhoto. You're paying for the latest and greatest versions. And you can even DOWNLOAD the old versions FREE. And if they start charging for the latest Safari and the latest iCal, so what? it's not like my version of Safari will stop working instantly. I will use th eold version untill I decide the new features are worth the price. NO ONE IS FORCED TO BUY SOFTWARE.