why are most soft synths and effects so expensive?

[Muff Wiggler]

Not only what you said, Jim, but commercial software developers regularly charge $50 per hour and up for their skills as compensation for their time and knowledge.

woah, where's that? at my office, we charge $1275 USD per day, per developer for custom work. And it doesn't go 'per hour', minimum is one day. I've never found professional developers who will work on an hourly basis, unless you give them a good contract guarenteeing so many hours over a fixed time period. And it comes out to WAAAY more than $50 an hour OMG

and we are in Canada, and are regarded almost all over (Russia and India being the exceptions) as very cheap development. Our head office is in California, and our parent company has developers there as well - you wouldn't believe what they cost to keep. We were acquired almost exclusively for our ability to develop quality software much more cheaply than can be done in California. At $1275/day per head - about $160 an hour.

[esl]

thanks to everyone for the information.

I think what I am understanding here today is that soft synths do not sell nearly as many "units" as I thought they did.

[lfm]

Funny that none mentioned piracy this far in postings.

I think expected sales volume very much set's the price. And then you also calculate with cracked copies that never contribute to next generation of the original product.

Most users look at Microsoft and do their estimate how much software vendors earn. It won't matter if I get a cracked copy instead. How wrong they are!

I don't think anybody would think like:

- Well, now I need a car, so I take my neighbours Mercedes(without asking of course).

But because software and music and film is so easy to nick, there is a big crowd think that way.

[Muff Wiggler]

thanks to everyone for the information.

I think what I am understanding here today is that soft synths do not sell nearly as many "units" as I thought they did.

if you see borogove around the forums (he's the one-man show behind Tiny God, excellent and low-cost VST synths and effects), ask him about this

then get really depressed

[imekon]

if indeed the main costs to developers are the coding and the GUI, then shouldn't new soft synths all cost around $40?

You think coding and GUI are trivial then, I take it?

I am not trying to offend anybody, I am just curious, please help me understand.

Software is not a 'tangible' product. It's not hardware, you can't pick it up and feel it. You can hear it, see it etc. You can also copy it as much as you like (protection systems allowing).

So why isn't it free. After all, it's nothing, isn't it?

Well, someone had to write it. Had to design the user interface. Had to optimise the code to make it run without flattening your host. Support it when trouble arises...

You think that's worth $50?

Some people might agree with you. Others will charge more, others less.

You like something, you pay for it, you use it.

You like something, you think its too expensive, you don't buy it, you don't use it. You can ask the seller why it costs so much, but its not your decision what they sell it for.

[imekon]

Oh, come on, Hunter, every hardware designer knows that software programming is just 'typing'

As a software developer I'm insulted!

[LiteOn]

Hi,

what exactly detirmines the price point? there are no parts & manufacturing costs since it's a virtual instrument, and there are no distributors taking a cut (and jacking up the price).

I am ignorant to the time and expertise it takes to code a new intstrument. but, if I understand correctly, when a consumer buys a synth they are paying for:

-the time and expertise it takes to code the instrument
-the design of the GUI
-advertising costs

is there anything else that I am missing?

if indeed the main costs to developers are the coding and the GUI, then shouldn't new soft synths all cost around $40?

I am not trying to offend anybody, I am just curious, please help me understand.

Well for the most part there's no significant difference in the product development between hard- and software synths.

First of all, you HAVE to do a kind of a market analysis (what is missing? what niches are still largely uncovered? Another emulation? etc.). And: if you think you have the gross specifications for a great synth - you never know wether your market assumptions will still apply when you're coming up with it (economical risk!).
This needs time - and time means costs.

After having established this rather general product description the planning phase continues with the elaboration of the detailed functional specification (how many voices? How many osc's? Rather warm sounding? What plattforms should be supported etc.). You have to specify that in greatest detail, you have to discuss that, you will work it over. In parallel, you have to consider usability issues (GUI), you will very likely do varios GUI prototypes to allow for better decision. Depending on the development process paradigm you will also start to define the test cases in this phase.
This needs time - and time means costs.

After having the functional specifications you have to mould them into a technical program model by defining the programm components, modules etc.. You might have to develop algorithms from scratch. When the design seems to be finished it must be revised.
This needs time - and time means costs.

When the technical layout is there it gets realized in the coding phase. Of course, every unit of work/code should be tested first in here. Of course, groups of units (components like e.g. a filter module) must be tested as well.
This needs time - and time means costs.

When coding is finished testing on the application level must be done. At best, the testers are not the coders in this phase. This will occurr iteratively: test - bug - fix - test ....
This needs time - and time means costs.

Additionally, you have to think about:
- distribution (dwonload, boxed, payment system)
- support
- patch design etc.

Clearly, this sceneraio is uncomplete and won't directly lead to a price of XXX$ but might explain, why software might not be "cheap".

And, from my experience pure coding accounts for max 40% of the total s/w product development expenditures.


cheers,
LiteOn

[mandolarian]

Oh, come on, Hunter, every hardware designer knows that software programming is just 'typing'

As a software developer I'm insulted!

As a 'typing developer' in a hardware shop, I face this everyday. You'll get over it. But we can take solace in the fact that hardware design is just 'soldering'

[Kriminal]

Most devs are actually mental, and dont understand money anyway....bit like HRH Liz

[shamann]

Even small developers pay distribution costs: server space, network bandwidth, storefront services like kagi, etc. Probably doesn't cost as much as shipping things by transport, but it still costs.

From what I've been able to tell over the years, many developers simply price their products at a price they think is appropriate and might attract enough customers to make a buck. Markets don't reflect time and effort in manufacturing when it comes to a product like software, because quite simply consumers don't give a shit. When was the last time you decided to pay a premium because a software publisher insisted it took them 2 years of full-time coding to develop a product? Markets merely reflect the cost of things people are willing to pay. And other than maybe the very big dogs, I doubt any developer is getting rich selling software synthesizers.

Software isn't that expensive, all things considered, though it certainly would add up if you decided to buy everything. But consider the cost of everything else computer musicians use, compare that to the cost of software and measure that against the utility the software has for you. In that scheme, software is in fact one of the least expensive items, and yields a high value (couldn't make music on the computer without software). This situation is kind of like car owners bitching about the cost of fuel, when, of the major costs to own a car, fuel is one of the smallest.

However this market is rife with bad business practices. Sadly, many software publishers don't appear to do significant market research before setting a price. I can think of many overpriced software titles published this year that I'm sure have no more than twenty registered users. But of course, as the propaganda will always state, the pricing is never at fault for such situations.

This is part of the problem when you have an industry managed from development though sales by one person, usually who is better suited only to deal with the development part. Some can do it, guys like Urs at U-he and Ben at Camel appear very good at running small businesses, but many obviously can't (no names, I'm not here to offend anyone).

I wish we were seeing more partnerships like what Rob Papen and Jon from CoFX or Adam and Chris at Audio Damage are doing, since each side brings mutually beneficial skills to the table and develop a better business model in the long run. How many times have we seen developers spam here when their over-priced run-of-the-mill synthesizers just aren't selling well, with the subtext almost always being that we the market (obviously a bunch of spoiled ingrates) have let them down?

[james0tucson]

what exactly detirmines the price point?

Just like any other business that involves sales, the price point is a function of what the market will bear.

[james0tucson]

Wait just a minute. It seems to me there's just as much free stuff as there is expensive stuff. Maybe a lot more free stuff.

[original flipper]

HI

Going a little off topic ... but I feel that the market is (for some music applications) MASSIVE - I think that the reason AKAI almost(apparently)went out of business was largely down to the software market knocking the stuffing out of the Hardware sampler market.

The fact that AKAI did not see this coming and get into producing software varients of their hardware probably makes it close to impossioble for them to ever scale the dizzy heights of their previouis market share in the area of sampling.

I think it is a real shame that many of the 'classic' hardware companies have not been able to crossover into the software arena - I could never understand why (for instance) Novation never coded up a software equiverlant to the Supernova synth or Emu doing a software rompler version of their 'PHATT' modules (without having to buy their card).

I imagine that 'boxed' software at the higher price point with shop window/magazine/music show/store demo potential probably DOES have a much bigger market than many of the more specialist, quirky or semi-underground companies ... perhaps the question then, should be - why can't I download Absynth for $79 from NI and sidestep the boxed version in the local music store that retails at $299 and has 3 companies sharing profits on?

Flipper.

[shamann]

Wait just a minute. It seems to me there's just as much free stuff as there is expensive stuff. Maybe a lot more free stuff.

There's a lot of free stuff. Any market where you have to compete with free is going to be a real tough slog. And I can think of a few cases where developers decided to give away something they originally had planned to sell because they simply didn't think it would rise above. Makes for a very turbulent market.

[james0tucson]

I'm surprised the Papens and the Linplugs and the NI's out there haven't gone so far as to make an embedded computer hardware version of a VSTi. Every one of Papen's advertisements indicates the *desire* to do this, since they present their VSTis as though they were three-dimensional hardware. I think it would be awesome if they really did that. Receptor is a good start, but it has to be too many things, so it needs a big power supply, fans, disk drives, etc. A special purpose device, maybe mini-itx and flash memory based, with a specialized control surface and display... man that would be cool.