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.

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?

It was justified...

[MoneyT]

The minute they released garageband.

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.

Re:So, you bought and Apple and got ripped off...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod parent to "Troll".

I've been nothing but pleased with my Ti Powerbook since I purchased it 18 months ago. The apps are of a very high quality, much better than any compariable windows app.

People need to remember that Apple needs to stay in business. They are offering a great product suite for a very low price. They are not ripping anyone off. We all have our current versions of these apps and if we get a new Mac we get the newest version with it. If you want to always have the newest software you have to pay for it. What the heck is wrong with that?

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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?

Re:So, you bought and Apple and got ripped off...

[Anonymous Coward]

because the money you paid was for time and labor to make the app you bought WHEN you bought it. SINCE THEN, hundreds, perhaps thousands of man hours have been spent on making the app better and adding features you never even knew you would want when your originally made your purchase. should those programmers and designers starve because of YOU and YOURS?

when you buy a car, are you entiled to next years model too?

Best deal in software

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, you can barely get an oil-change for the price of iTunes+iMovie+iDVD+GarageBand etc etc etc.

Quit your bitching and drop the $50, people.

Re:So, you bought and Apple and got ripped off...

[Echnin]

I think maybe it's time for you to learn something new [dict.org] today:

Irony: 2. A sort of humor, ridicule, or light sarcasm, which adopts a mode of speech the meaning of which is contrary to the literal sense of the words.

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...

$50

[ExileOnHoth]

If you think you can find something better out there for free, use that instead.

If you don't, you can (a) buy apple's software, or you can (b) write some yourself and give it away!

What's the gripe? They owe you nothing.

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.

Get over it

[skinfitz]

Too bad I just had to have the iBook G4 the second it was released!

Dude, it's only $49. If you can afford to run out and buy an iBook G4 the second it's released then you can afford $49.

It's not like the old software has stopped working - it will continue to work just fine. If you want the updated software then you buy it.

Re:Does this make any sense?

[Steveftoth]

Apple always charged you for the applications, but you just didn't know you were paying for them.

It's an upgrade fee, I don't understand how people can be so mad about this. Are people angry about paying to upgrade their Photoshop?

"I bought Photoshop, that means they should give me the next version for free! Stupid Adobe!"

According to Apple, iPhoto is much better, (faster, less buggy and has new features) and the GarageBand application is brand new!

I know that I sound like an Apple apologist, but come on, you didn't actually think that when you bought an Apple computer that they will solve all your problems with software updates for no cost?

What about iPhoto?

[njfuzzy]

A lot of the arguments here are talking about why it is justifiable for Apple to charge for the suite in general. However, I would like to take a step back, and look at one specific application.

I do not find it acceptable that Apple is now charging for the latest version of iPhoto, even if they include it with new Macs. The reason is a very simple one that I think will make sense to anyone who has worked in software development...

iPhoto 4 is a big fix release.

I will say it again. The latest version if iPhoto, 4.0, is a bug fix release. The most appealing feature of his version is that it fixes a problem that has been present in iPhoto since version 1.0, the ridiculously slow speeds with large photo libraries.

It is common practice that major bugs should be fixed as part of free, bug-fix releases. It just isn't right to release buggy software, and then charge people when you make it work the way you promised all along.

Unless Apple makes a revised version of iPhoto 3 available, that works with reasonably-sized photo libraries, it is unethical for them to be charging for iPhoto 4.

Re:It was justified...

[mista kuro]

I don't believe so. I myself am a musician and will definitely use garage band. What about he people who don't want to make music or use garage band? I think the reason people are a little upset is because this is .mac all over again. Its just a little tricky to offer something for free and not give a heads up or warning that users may need to pay in the future. I know that if I had used the free mac.com email address when it was free and had to start paying, I would be pretty disappointed. Its not the money, its the principle.

Re:What about iPhoto?

[njfuzzy]

Have you ever used iPhoto with, say, 1000 photos in the library? Or 25,000? The performance isn't just bad, it's alarmingly bad. A program for viewing files, that can't view files in any reasonable time-frame, is buggy. I accept that not all performance issues are on this level, of course, but there comes a point where a product needs to be improved to live up to its basic promise.

Re:Typical Apple Business Model

[jfw25]

If you buy an iMac or iBook, do you expect to get new versions of AppleWorks for free?

Hell, I'd be happy to get new versions of AppleWorks, period!

Re:Lots of "punish me harder" comments

[American AC in Paris]

When Steve Jobs was at NeXT, some magazine interviewer asked "What would you do if you were running Apple again?" Steve thought for a minute, and answered "I'd milk it for all it's worth."

...actually, the complete quote was "If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth--and get busy on the next great thing." The quote is from early 1996. Think back to early 1996 and the state of the Macintosh--the storm clouds were rapidly gathering, Windows 95 was taking off like a bottle rocket, and Apple wasn't really doing anything about it. Jobs was right to say that. And, to be perfectly honest, Steve has already done what he said he would do--he's taken Apple on to "the next big thing" with OS X and the entire "Digital Hub" concept. The Macintosh of 1996 is milked and gone.

Calling for-fee upgrade versions "Bait and Switch" is a bit rich. Did Apple ever claim that they'd never charge for future versions of their software?

Just answer this question: if new and exciting upgrades to the iApps justified the cost of system upgrades before, why isn't the OS X pricing dropping now?

Perhaps because the system continues to grow in complexity, thus requiring even more dilligence and attention. The larger and more complex something gets, the more it costs to maintain. Microsoft has a tradition of shirking on this point, and it shows--the more "advanced" their systems get, the more a computer gets bogged down with cruft and flotsam. Contrast this to Apple: not only did 10.3 have a whole bunch of new features and fixes, it was significantly faster than 10.2. This is neither easy nor cheap, and it gets harder and more expensive the more advanced something gets.

Anyhow, I get the feeling I'm not going to be changing any minds. You're clearly so incensed at Apple that you're finished buying their products. Enjoy the one you have!

Cheese and Wine

[Graymalkin]

I don't understand how people could have not expected this to happen. The previous version of iLife was $49 mostly due to iDVD's included media. The other iApps were available for download, including iMovie and iPhoto's very large updates. It seems just as likely now as it did then that the "free" iApps will be available for download at some point. If they aren't the old versions will not delete themselves from your hard drive. These new programs have been out for a couple days now and iPhoto imported pictures off my camera just fine. They've all yet to self destruct.

I'm also having trouble seeing how the new iLife suite isn't worth the price. The educational discount cuts the price down to $29 which will set you back a couple Frappucinos for the month. If it isn't worth the upgrade stick with the old stuff. I ordered it because GarageBand seems like an awesome app to play around with. I liked what I saw of SoundTrack but really do not need all of its features nor do I want to spend that sort of money. Even the full retail price isn't too bad considering what's included. It didn't bother me too much paying $50 for a suite of programs I use all the time.