Exilio

@ Andrew,

A fair question and easy enough to answer:

FotoMagic @ $29
iBank @ $60
Things @ $50
LEGA Harry Potter @ $50
Delicious Library @ $40
Money3 @ $39
BlackInk @ $25
KnapSack @ $40
etc etc etc.

Most of these companies kept or introduced the MacOS version of their software at the same prices or on par with the old school pricing model. Whereas Apple, who has a much better grasp of customers, significantly lowered their prices on popular software items by 50% or more. RapidWeaver did the same thing--normally charging $80 for their software, but introducing it at $40 on the App store--a concept we will see more. And I'd imagine we will see prices stay at that sale price or at the very least reduced. The Mac market is now much larger and therefore these exorbitant prices can no longer be rationalized.

Now I know there are going to be some devs that are gonna tell me I don't what all goes into making their software. But at the end of the day it is just that, software and most customers DON'T KNOW and DON'T care. Not because they are mean and don't think devs should make a living. It is just the same reasoning behind buying any good or service--people only care about what they have to pay--they don't want a sob story from the seller as to why it is so expensive. Yes, there is development cost, but gone are the days of expensive packaging, shipping and distributors all taking a slice. Apple is the only one, and that is very clear and forecastable cost.

If you don't already know, we the consumers, ultimately dictate price on many goods and services. So if you feel that the price is out of line, please DON'T BUY IT. By that same token, please DO support and recommend developers that price their software reasonably. And send them an email thanking them for their balanced approach and understanding of their customers.

Yes. Much of the pricing is astronomical. What devs don't realize, or care to acknowledge, is that the old-school pricing model for desktops no longer applies in the era of iOS. $59 for a banking app, from an unknown developer? I don't think so, and neither will most people.

A) Back when the MacOS was the only revenue stream for developers, that kind of pricing made sense. You typically needed to pay your devs, pay for marketing, and have servers to load the software--but now Apple does all that. What's more, most, if not all, of the development for many of these apps has already been done and was an easy port to MacOS X.

B) This all amounts to greed and testing the waters. Devs are concerned about the slippery slope of adjusting the pricing model downwards. However, they will learn because now customers have options.

So please do yourself a favor and other users, please don't pay for these outrageously priced applications--reward those developers that show common sense pricing. If the devs see that people aren't buying their apps, they will have no choice but to adjust their prices accordingly.

This isn't a real mind-bender. People simply aren't going to pay more for an iPad version than the print -- if magazine execs believed they were going to, they were seriously deluding themselves. You don't make a foray into a new medium by sticking it possible subscribers. You break into the market, take a hit on expenses, win people over, and then refine the model to make a profit and go from there.

Price is the issue -- pure and simple. No pun intended. ;-)

All Google apps feel rushed and initially disappoint. They need to hire less engineers and get some quality UI people in there and then get out of their way. Google is a company ran by engineers that don't appreciates aesthetics or UI--it is a fundamental weakness of the company.

When your local newspaper sucks, like mine in San Jose, California, it's not hard to transition to digital media. Too bad the local rag hasn't yet. Een their attempts have been feeble at best. What's more, most of the writers are anything but--there's a serious lack of unbiased, talented writers in San Jose. And as the supposed Silicon Valley I shocked and amazed how poorly done the news is--shameful.

What's more, I would not support this developer. They basically created an earlier app (Chronicles) and then this one (Chapters) with added features. Instead of just updating the app they already released, as almost ALL other devs do, they got greedy and wanted to charge users all over again--even the icon is the same.

Please don't reward that kind of fleecing of iOS users by greedy devs.

Awesome write up -- I might just resub for a month to check it out.

However, I disagree on your take for Lt. General for Kilingons -- I guess you were never in the military or know much about it--but that is a three star general--there is only one rank higher. There was once the bad ass 5-star general, but the last one was in WW2 I think.

Sorry, I have no mad Haiku skills. ;-)

However, F2P, as it has already been stated, is just another option for players--and it is an option I embrace.

I have been playing games since the 80s--especially RPGs. When MMOs became all the rage, I had already been playing them in one form or another. When I started, I had more time than money. However, as I have gotten older and gained more and more responsibilities, the equation had flip-flopped, I now have more money than time. Does this constitute an unfair advantage for me? Not if the developers of the F2P games do it right and balance it.

Let's be honest, some players, who want to get to that great piece of armor, or mount, just don't have the time. And sadly, many gamers, because they are younger and have more time than money, see it as a cheat that people can "buy" their way to good items. However, those players should note that most of us with more money than time are jealous of all the time the younger players have--I would much rather be able to put in the time to score some of that great loot or get that next level.

What developers are realizing is that there is a whole market of gamers out there that simply can't invest the time to achieve what they feel is success, F2P games with items shops somewhat remedy that. And just like any new game or concept, it will take time to smooth out the wrinkles and balance it for all gamers. With that in mind, I think the EQ2 model might do well--they just need to tweak their prices which I anticipate will happen before launch.

Exactly my thought too! Headline is very misleading.

I bought one for myself. Loved it so much, bought one for my wife and sold both of our MacBooks. Bought an iMac as the single Mac for the house to do the things the iPad can't. It's been awesome.