Calculating the True Worth of Software

chromatic writes "Many people recognize that the cost to duplicate a piece of software is a fraction of the number on its price tag. Many people also understand that software without support and maintenance loses much of its value. Is there a way to put a price on the software, support, maintenance, and the option for future upgrades itself? Robert Lefkowitz recently applied an options pricing model to software in ONLamp.com's Calculating the True Price of Software. Don't let the description fool you; it's both a readable and serious apologia of the common free software business model."

Comments

The actual price of SW.

[alexhs]

Is there a way to put a price on the software, support, maintenance, and the option for future upgrades itself?

Easy, these prices are proportional to the penetration indice of your previous software : a monopoly charge high fees, an outsider small ones.

Koders does something like this...

[tcopeland]

...although simpler, I think. Apache 2 comes in at a half million dollars, Tomcat weighs in at $250K.

Worth or cost?

[mccalli]

Headline talks of worth, blurb speaks of cost. As I'm sure the poster is aware, they're not the same thing by a long way.

For example, I run a one-man contracting business. The worth to me of my accounts package is vast, the cost of it miniscule in comparison. And that cost is...one copy of Virtual PC for around £100 I think (I run OS X), one copy of XP for around £170 (retail, used it on a physical PC I no longer have and now it's on the emulator), then around £50 for Quicken UK. I can feel the Free people ganging up on me - I must be mad! That adds up to £230, that's nearly the price of a low-end machine! Well, to me that software is worth the amount, and the price is an utterly negligible amount of the cost of running my business.

Cheers,
Ian

To me..

[riflemann]

The price of software is whatever value it adds to my business, or personally it's whatever I'm willing to pay for whatever convenience it offers (after all, software is 90% "convenience" for personal use)

If I were a doctor, a full medial records + billing application would be worth many thousands (or equivalent of support services for free software). If I am running a bakery, then inventory software is worth far less.

As a hobbyist, software related to my hobby would be worth more than some random game to play with once in a while - if I'm a gamer, that game is worth a lot more than the same hobbyist values it.

Re:To me..

[bnenning]

Tell you what: in a normal world, if Adobe Premiere Pro isn't worth 800 to you, you don't buy it, and you certainly don't steal it. Period.

I'm disappointed at how many people here go along with the BSA/**AA line. Duplication is not theft. It may be illegal, and it may be wrong, but there is a clear difference.

Re:To me..

[adam872]

When talking about stuff like this, you get into the world of cost-plus versus value based pricing. The cost-plus pricing, as you alluded to, is based on the question: "how much does it cost me to engineer this widget, plus the cost of supporting it over time?". You calculate that cost and add markup to it to calculate the price you will charge. In a competitve market place, you will be under pressure to lower prices to win business, which eats into your margin. So you are then left with either reducing your engineering costs or accepting lower margins. That is, unless you are cheaper than your competition and then you get to preserve your margins.

The other way to do it is to work out how much value this widget creates for the customer. You ask yourself the question: "how much will this widget do one of: lower operational cost, increase productivity, enable new opportunities or reduce risk?". If the numbers are substantial, you charge a proportion of that value as your price (you better be able to demonstrate that, otherwise noone will buy it). In my experience, value based pricing is higher than cost-plus.

Which way you go depends on how much of a commodity your product is. For stuff that anyone can make, you have little chance of using the value based model, given a high rate of competition. For highly specialised areas, the opportunity is greater. However, most widgets become commodities in the end. Engineering practices become more efficient and the market widens for all but the most specialised of products (thereby increasing the volume but often lowering the price). You also have other players moving into the market and spotting an inefficiency they can exploit by being more efficient etc (Dell are the classic example of this).

The firm I work for wrestles with this choice daily. Our tools are very specialised and often create enormous value for the customer (last week, one tool saved the customer over USD 1M, but we charged a fraction of that and still made excellent money). At the same time, the market is competitve, preventing massive price hikes.

In terms of your question: I don't think there is an ethical paradox here. You simply decide which of the models you can use and charge accordingly. Assuming you are not in a monopoly situation, the free market will tell you if you are right or wrong with the pricing. I do, however, think that in a monopoly situation, the potential for market distortion and underhand dealings by suppliers becomes almost a certainty.

Price of Tetris

[SnappingTurtle]

Scene: me, in an arcade, 20 years ago

another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
another game: 25 cents
getting the high score: priceless

(or so I thought at the time)

Sure there is...

[zr-rifle]

$699

Thanks,
Darl.

Cost vs value

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people recognize that the cost to duplicate a piece of software is a fraction of the number on its price tag. Many people also understand that software without support and maintenance loses much of its value. Is there a way to put a price on the software, support, maintenance, and the option for future upgrades itself?

Of course there is. Cost and value are two different concepts. Something can cost nothing, yet be very valuable (e.g. Apache).

Pricing things like support is merely the exercise of coming up with a price that is low enough to find people who value it more than the price, while still being higher than the cost to provide it.

The cost to provide support includes things like employing people who know all about the software.

The value to the customers is that they can rely on the software and get problems sorted more quickly without having to employ their own experts.

Neither of these bears any relation to the cost of the software itself. It can be free, or it can cost thousands, the principle is the same.

There is a difference between Free Software and proprietary software though; with Free Software, you can get support from a number of competing firms, and with proprietary software, you are limited to the original vendor. Free Software support has the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism, proprietary software support does not.

this just in:

[sum.zero]

value is subjective.

sum.zero

A Financial Analysis of Things We Already Know

[Akoman]

There is a lot of finance talk going on in this article, but the conclusion he comes to is one that many of us already know: commercial Open Source creates a market for support and maintenance. Article might be good for corporate types wondering why licenses cost nothing over here.

Joel on Software on the same topic

[Psionicist]

How much should I charge for my software? http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRu bberDuckies.html

You've just released your latest photo-organizing software. Through some mechanism which will be left as an exercise to the reader, you've managed to actually let people know about it. Maybe you have a popular blog or something. Maybe Walt Mossberg wrote a rave review in the Wall Street Journal.

One of the biggest questions you're going to be asking now is, "How much should I charge for my software?" When you ask the experts they don't seem to know. Pricing is a deep, dark mystery, they tell you. The biggest mistake software companies make is charging too little, so they don't get enough income, and they have to go out of business. An even bigger mistake, yes, even bigger than the biggest mistake, is ...

Re:Joel on Software on the same topic

[MBCook]

Very little ($20?). That's my answer. Here is why.

People fall into three groups by and large. Here is what each will pay and why.

1. Mac People - They have iPhoto, or can buy iPhoto (as part of iLife) at a great value. That is an AMAZING piece of software. Good luck getting people to switch off it.
2. Windows People - They have Picasa. It's the closest thing on Windows to iPhoto. It's not as great, but is fantastic compared to everything else out there I've seen. It's made by Google and is FREE. Good luck getting people to buy your product.
3. Linux People - They want it free. Free OS, free software. Some will pay, but many will just use some OSS photo organizer and be happy with it because it's free. Not to start something, just my observations.

All that said I agree that pricing is a major mystery. Just a little too high and no one would touch it. A little too low and people will buy it, but as the blurb in the parent post states, you could have made much more money.

And then there are other cases. Like when I went from a PC to a Mac I purchased a little program for about $20 to turn my Outlook e-mail into something Mail.app could import. I HATED paying $20 for it, and I avoided it as long as I could. But after two days of fighting every free way I could, I bought the program and was glad I did (and wished I would have done it sooner). Had it cost less, I would have bought it sooner, but then they wouldn't have gotten much money ($5 probably would have done it). You also get things like TiVo. People balk at that (Why should I pay $12 a month for what I can get for free with my VCR?), but as a TiVo user I would gladly pay double that if they were going under at the current price. But how much trouble would they have selling them with a $25 per month subscription?

The only people who have it right are MS. They charge a ton, get a ton of money, and everyone is locked into (or at least thinks they are locked into) their software so they pay it. Everyone hates it, but most people don't do anything about it.

Re:Slashdot and SW

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Most people here don't buy software - they get it from edonkey/torrents anyway.

And this is an interesting point. I've always been amazed at the dollar figures the BSA gives out for the "value" of "pirated" software, avoiding the fact that a large percentage of these people would not have bought the legitimate copy anyway.

True Worth To Me...

[__aaclcg7560]

My contract rate as a QA Lead Tester is between $15 to $20 per hour. That's how much software is worth in Silicon Valley. However, outside of Silicon Valley, I would get $50 to $70 per hour for the same kind of work. Go figure.

Re:software is worth..

[Metteyya]

...unless there is monopoly or software doesn't have more-or-less equal alternatives (Photoshop, Autocad and so on).

Remember, that basic laws of free market (like the one in parent post) apply to market with equal (or almost equal) products.

If you are an architect and the only really viable piece of soft for you is Autocad, you can't speak of free market here.

What the competition is charging ?

[shashark]

You can't charge awefully more than your competition, can you ? If the competition gives it up for free -- then well, all your calculations go awry.

Think about the price of a browser, media player and well, a operating system.

Think Netscape vs IE circa 2000 AD. Now, only a free product could defeat IE.
--
This sig is up for free.

Re:What the competition is charging ?

[mr_gerbik]

Think Netscape vs IE circa 2000 AD.

Netscape was dead by 2000.

Think Google Earth, Picasa, and Gmail. But hey, Google buying up companies and offering the software for free to kill the competition is a honorable thing right? Not evil like when Microsoft did it.

Re:What the competition is charging ?

[fermion]

Ah, this is interesting. I have been using browsers, media players, and operating systems for many years. I have never directly paid to use the former two. It was either a free download(perhaps FTP) or came with the machine. The later I have directly paid to add to a machine once in my life. It was CP/M. Otherwise it came with the machine or was an inexpensive upgrade.

What we learn from this is that utility, or operating, components are not so valuable in themselves. We buy a complete car, not a chasis, engine, and then oh, we need some way to control it.

But in the end the value of a product is not measured in resources consumed, but in what people, either the end user or advertiser or whoever, will pay to use it. Of course, if the value is not greater than the billable resources consumed, then the company will suffer, and if the value is not greater than all resources consumed, then society suffers.

MS continues to use IE as the carrot to keep people on widows. It value is soley to MS as a monopolistic tool. This is why it has been and will continue to be free, and why they are increasingly limiting the upgrade path.

Re:What the competition is charging ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But hey, Google buying up companies and offering the software for free to kill the competition is a honorable thing right?

I think now that Google is a public company it is inevitable that it will follow its motivation. The examples you cite, however do seem to be different. I don't see that any of these products are tied (pdf) to an existing offering, responsible for breaking a competitor's product or obtained through outright theft

Re:software is worth..

[KyleWilson]

Sounds to me as if the way to make valuable open source products is to create a product that is very difficult to setup (thus producing much consulting/support revenue) but very powerful once you've got it going. If you can find something that requires extensive customization you're probably on the right track. Easy to configure products that are readily usable by everyone don't contribute usefully to the open source community's economic well-being (as they'll just be used by non programmers and won't fund any developers by way of support contracts)...Interesting... This suggests that the income proposition for opern source products is almost backwards from that for closed source. A closed source commercial company wants to provide the product pretty much ready to go and doesn't want to provide extensive after sales support. An open source company wants to release products that require extensive support as paid contract work (and this sort of product enriches the entire open source community...at least as long as the end result of the customization is quite valuable)...

Re:Slashdot and SW

[Kjella]

avoiding the fact that a large percentage of these people would not have bought the legitimate copy anyway.

Yes, but there's a big difference between that legitimate copy and a legitimate copy. Would someone who pirates Adobe Photoshop with all bells and whistles buy it? Very unlikely. And they do, because if you're going to pirate it anyway, why go for anything but the most powerful and expensive program? But if he could not pirate any graphics program at all, he'd likely buy something. Maybe a lighter Adobe product, Paint Shop Pro, maybe he'd find GIMP or any number of possibilities. But it's not likely he'd stick with MS Paint.

So it is equally wrong to pretend that none of the piracy leads to lost sales. But finding the exact factor would involve some handwaving and a magic number between 0 and 1. Piracy apologists often claims it is 0. BSA claims it is 1. Both are wrong and they know it, but it fits their agenda and it is difficult to say what the factor *really* should be. Good luck in trying.

Kjella

Piracy hurts OSS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually one could say that piracy hurts OSS. Why? Because it gives an individual one of the benefits of OSS (zero price) with the benefits of proprietary software (ease of use, familiarity, etc, etc). Why try the GIMP, or Apache, or any of the other OSS software when you can get the paid software for free?

Besides piracy also leads to market dilution, and various image problems. e.g A pirate copy of Adobe Photoshop could have spyware. Potentially ruining Adobe's reputation in the market.