The thing is iLife and OS X raise the value of the machine. They do not raise the costs for Apple.
They raise costs considerably, it's just that the costs are (mostly) sunk rather than marginal. Dells pays $x per CPU sold to MS for Windows. Their cost per machine doesn't change if they sell ten million or one million. Apple invests $y million/year in OS X and iLife, and needs to make that up from the sum of all sales. You end up paying a little more marginally from Apple than Dell/MS because Apple needs to spread OS development costs comparable to MS's across one-tenth as many boxes. The fact they can compete at all is probably due in equal measure to Apple's efficiency and the combination of MS's inability to spend most of the money they collect and their unbelievably prolifigate waste of much of what they do spend.
They raise costs considerably, it's just that the costs are (mostly) sunk rather than marginal.
Yes, sorry, I was not trying to imply that iLife and OS X cost Apple nothing to develop. But like you say, they are not marginal costs, so the cost to Apple to include them on a computer are very low compared to what they charge for the shrink-wrapped product at retail.
But like you say, they are not marginal costs, so the cost to Apple to include them on a computer are very low compared to what they charge for the shrink-wrapped product at retail.
But, at least in the case of iLife (and all the other stuff people would love to see bundled with their new toy), there is an opportunity cost. Foregone sales of iLife. Just as I expect Apple reckons that selling a Mini with better video or faster HDD will have an opportunity cost in sales of much more profitable hardware.
But, at least in the case of iLife (and all the other stuff people would love to see bundled with their new toy), there is an opportunity cost. Foregone sales of iLife. Just as I expect Apple reckons that selling a Mini with better video or faster HDD will have an opportunity cost in sales of much more profitable hardware.
James
Welcome to our new member!
However, iLife is included with all new Macs, so any Mac sold means an iLife set sold. There is a difference when it comes to upgrading... buying the box. Some people may choose to hold off on the update until they update their computer.
Well, most of the people I know staying with Windows for software are just gamers.
I think a $399 Mac would fit for an email, web, musci & photos, and word processor machine. My parents and relatives, my wife's parents and relatives, and most of my friends' family -- this is the use of their computer ('cept those who like to play games).
Not quite sure what you're saying here. So an OS lives and dies by the amount of software for it, that would make the hardware would live and die by the amount of hardware available for it. Though the Mini doesn't leave that much room for hardware improvements (excluding external additions).
Haven't thoroughly read the thread here, but I think I've seen the complaints that the enclosure doesn't make room for the 3.5" HDs where the 500GB is cheaper.
Not the people I mentioned above who could make use of a $399 Mac
I think the Mac Mini is a pretty neat computer. Though it's not one for me, it's kinda nifty. That the thing with one company making the hardware, they can only make so many product lines geared to only so many target markets. There'll always be (sometimes big) gaps in between.
I'm not saying Apple should or should not go to clones, just that they will hit this issue with their product lineup unless they release many more products to fill the spaces which I do not thing they'll do.
I think Apple makes great products and they do seem to last well. However, I wonder if they miss their mark more often than hit them. When Apple released OS X to clone makers, the complaint was that the clone makers were taking market share from Apple and not the other market. So why did people buy the clones instead of actual Apple hardware? If Apple's hardware was so great, people should've still been buying them.
That is true. However, perception is reality and people will make their comments and opintions based on that reality (like how I did from what I think is the truth). The perception is not always fact which is why some peoples reality is totally distorted -- like there's some reality distortion field (just had to say that one).
That's the cold hard reality. As long as Apple's the only manufacturer of computers capable of running OS X, we'll have to take what Apple provides to us what Apple believes we want. The thing with the Windows, Linux, and anything else of the generic x86 market is that they have a wide range of choices when it come to purchasing computers. One thing us Mac users don't have (well, unless you use the Maxxuss or whatever his name is patch).
Well, if it could do email, web, and Office stuff (since that's all I would need for work), I would pick one up to use at the office instead of the stuff they make us use. At that price, I wouldn't have to worry about getting the company to expense it.
It's hard for them to win. There's too many people out there with too many wants and needs. One company can't release a product line for each of those, but I kinda covered that already.
You really should read more of the thread. These points have been discussed back and forth several times.
I'll just respond to the "gamers" portion.
I hope you don't think that most Windows users are gamers. That's a small portion of the platform. There is a difference between people who play some basic games part of the time, and Gamers.
The former are the vast majority. The latter are a small minority.
Maybe something like the Shuttle PC (http://www.shuttle.com). Like the XPC barebones....ahh, I dunno. I just say this cuz I was thinking about a Shuttle for a game system to take to LAN parties.
Not sure what that implies, but anyways. I was referring to the comment about a $399 and the cost of iLife and OS X etc. etc. etc. When I bought my PowerMac, it didn't come with iLife (wasn't out yet). The PowerMacs out now include iLife, but the price point is around the same of what my model would've been equivalent to.
I mean, does it cost the full amount of the software package for Apple to include the CDs or DVDs or to build the OS off an image with this already installed?
This has been covered as well, but it bears repeating, as it isn't obvious.
One division of a company MUST, by law, pay another division of the same company, Fair Market Value, for a part or service they acquire from them.
If the iLife package has a value, as a pre-packaged product license, of, say $20, then the computer division must pay the software division $20 for each copy of the software it bundles. whether the disks are included or not is something else. It is the license that is of value, and is what the fee is for.
To the company, as a whole, the movement generates no positive, or negative cash flow, except for the bookkeeping costs involved.
They raise costs considerably, it's just that the costs are (mostly) sunk rather than marginal. Dells pays $x per CPU sold to MS for Windows. Their cost per machine doesn't change if they sell ten million or one million. Apple invests $y million/year in OS X and iLife, and needs to make that up from the sum of all sales. You end up paying a little more marginally from Apple than Dell/MS because Apple needs to spread OS development costs comparable to MS's across one-tenth as many boxes. The fact they can compete at all is probably due in equal measure to Apple's efficiency and the combination of MS's inability to spend most of the money they collect and their unbelievably prolifigate waste of much of what they do spend.
There are two aspects to this.
The developmental costs are certainly real, and burdensome.
However, Apple sells many copies of its software at retail. While this market is smaller that MS's, by a wide margin, it is enough to help recoup those costs, as well as the marketing costs that are always associated with sales.
Apple sells several million copies of the OS every year, as well as several million copies of iLife as well.
The sales of the OS add several hundred million dollars to Apple's gross, and are considered to contribute a greater percentage (margin) to Apple's profits than hardware sales do.
Software, particularly that such as iLife costs less for Apple to upgrade, then the initial cost of developing the product, even as it adds additional products to the mix. Apple is most certainly earning a good profit on that as well.
The costs of that software is always added to the price of the computer. The question is; how much? Only Apple has those figures.
MS, being primarily a software developer, has tremendous profits vs total sales. Extremely high margins, up to 80%.
This allows them to lose money on most all of their other endeavors. The games division, for example, has been giving them a loss of about $1.2 billion per year ever since they introduced the XBox. No other company could afford such consistent losses at that level.
The developmental costs are certainly real, and burdensome.
However, Apple sells many copies of its software at retail. While this market is smaller that MS's, by a wide margin, it is enough to help recoup those costs, as well as the marketing costs that are always associated with sales.
Apple sells several million copies of the OS every year, as well as several million copies of iLife as well.
The sales of the OS add several hundred million dollars to Apple's gross, and are considered to contribute a greater percentage (margin) to Apple's profits than hardware sales do.
Software, particularly that such as iLife costs less for Apple to upgrade, then the initial cost of developing the product, even as it adds additional products to the mix. Apple is most certainly earning a good profit on that as well.
The costs of that software is always added to the price of the computer. The question is; how much? Only Apple has those figures.
MS, being primarily a software developer, has tremendous profits vs total sales. Extremely high margins, up to 80%.
This allows them to lose money on most all of their other endeavors. The games division, for example, has been giving them a loss of about $1.2 billion per year ever since they introduced the XBox. No other company could afford such consistent losses at that level.
I've discussed this on another thread, but when vista comes out I think you will see what a value ilife and OS x are. Apple sells these at a very reasonable price IMO.
Macintosh is a package, one the has evolved over the years. Also, as sales increase, Apple does not need to make the same margin on each sale.
The software that comes bundled with the Mac is worth a lot of money as it is good stuff, especially for average users, right out of the box. The addition of a word processor would add ten-fold to the value, but I think that is coming somewhere down the line. (Appleworks was bundled for years and was a very capable program).
iLife's programs, all being made by the same maker, are all very similar (not to mention inter-connnected), thus lowering the learning curve before one can put the software to use. That means time saved, which is money saved. Add lower stress rates and a quicker realisation of pride regarding the work one has accomplished with the machine and software, and, if you ask me, an extra 200 bucks (over your 399 price) is worth the ease of use, quality, stability, lack of viruses, etc. Also, if I have any problems or questions with any part of the package (or the whole thing), I only have to call one support line. If I work hard to earn money, I want to spend that money well.
However, there are a lot of people who don't consider ease of use, integrated software, lower learning curve as part of the costs making the Mac a better value rather than a cheaper system (lack of viruses is only until virus writers start writing 'em for the Mac). They just look at the bottom line -- what's going to be coming out of their wallets and make their decision off that.
Another parts it that people who buy systems already know how to work the programs they're going to use on any platform so that part also isn't a factor in the total cost.
Yes, in the long run, there'll be less headache running OS X than something else and less time will be spent hacking away at the OS. But most people don't think of this when buying a computer.
They raise costs considerably, it's just that the costs are (mostly) sunk rather than marginal. Dells pays $x per CPU sold to MS for Windows. Their cost per machine doesn't change if they sell ten million or one million. Apple invests $y million/year in OS X and iLife, and needs to make that up from the sum of all sales. You end up paying a little more marginally from Apple than Dell/MS because Apple needs to spread OS development costs comparable to MS's across one-tenth as many boxes. The fact they can compete at all is probably due in equal measure to Apple's efficiency and the combination of MS's inability to spend most of the money they collect and their unbelievably prolifigate waste of much of what they do spend.
I do agree that it costs Apple money to develop these programs and they need to make it up somewhere. But it's the arguement that including the software with the hardware would raise the costs of the system that much. So if the software wasn't included and was required to be purchased from the store, would that make the hardware that much cheaper?
I've discussed this on another thread, but when vista comes out I think you will see what a value ilife and OS x are. Apple sells these at a very reasonable price IMO.
Absolutely! And including it with every machine makes it even more of a bargin.
However, iLife is included with all new Macs, so any Mac sold means an iLife set sold. There is a difference when it comes to upgrading... buying the box. Some people may choose to hold off on the update until they update their computer.
A Mac sold is an iLife set sold? Heh, I've been thinking it's Apple's way of getting people to use the iLife set and then when they release the new version, the users have to purchase the new one.
Not sure if buying the box is just an upgrade. It's for new and upgrading consumers. iLife from the box will install on a system even if there are no previous versions installed. An upgrade would require a previous version to be installed.
You really should read more of the thread. These points have been discussed back and forth several times.
I'll just respond to the "gamers" portion.
I hope you don't think that most Windows users are gamers. That's a small portion of the platform. There is a difference between people who play some basic games part of the time, and Gamers.
The former are the vast majority. The latter are a small minority.
I didn't say most Windows users are gamers. I just said most of the Windows users I know are.
This has been covered as well, but it bears repeating, as it isn't obvious.
One division of a company MUST, by law, pay another division of the same company, Fair Market Value, for a part or service they acquire from them.
If the iLife package has a value, as a pre-packaged product license, of, say $20, then the computer division must pay the software division $20 for each copy of the software it bundles. whether the disks are included or not is something else. It is the license that is of value, and is what the fee is for.
To the company, as a whole, the movement generates no positive, or negative cash flow, except for the bookkeeping costs involved.
But, each division must pay its way.
Ok, I see that. Best explanation I've seen. I'll go with that.
A Mac sold is an iLife set sold? Heh, I've been thinking it's Apple's way of getting people to use the iLife set and then when they release the new version, the users have to purchase the new one.
Not sure if buying the box is just an upgrade. It's for new and upgrading consumers. iLife from the box will install on a system even if there are no previous versions installed. An upgrade would require a previous version to be installed.
The term for it is; Full Upgrade.
Most software companies used to go this route, until piracy made most of them do incremental upgrades.
Some companies still do it. But, you have to pay full price for the program, and then send in the rebate coupon, which only works if you already own the product.
The first two that come to mind are Roxio (Toast), and Symantec (Anti-Virus).
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
The thing is iLife and OS X raise the value of the machine. They do not raise the costs for Apple.
They raise costs considerably, it's just that the costs are (mostly) sunk rather than marginal. Dells pays $x per CPU sold to MS for Windows. Their cost per machine doesn't change if they sell ten million or one million. Apple invests $y million/year in OS X and iLife, and needs to make that up from the sum of all sales. You end up paying a little more marginally from Apple than Dell/MS because Apple needs to spread OS development costs comparable to MS's across one-tenth as many boxes. The fact they can compete at all is probably due in equal measure to Apple's efficiency and the combination of MS's inability to spend most of the money they collect and their unbelievably prolifigate waste of much of what they do spend.
Originally posted by Towel
They raise costs considerably, it's just that the costs are (mostly) sunk rather than marginal.
Yes, sorry, I was not trying to imply that iLife and OS X cost Apple nothing to develop. But like you say, they are not marginal costs, so the cost to Apple to include them on a computer are very low compared to what they charge for the shrink-wrapped product at retail.
Originally posted by Mr. H
But like you say, they are not marginal costs, so the cost to Apple to include them on a computer are very low compared to what they charge for the shrink-wrapped product at retail.
But, at least in the case of iLife (and all the other stuff people would love to see bundled with their new toy), there is an opportunity cost. Foregone sales of iLife. Just as I expect Apple reckons that selling a Mini with better video or faster HDD will have an opportunity cost in sales of much more profitable hardware.
James
Originally posted by jrwo
But, at least in the case of iLife (and all the other stuff people would love to see bundled with their new toy), there is an opportunity cost. Foregone sales of iLife. Just as I expect Apple reckons that selling a Mini with better video or faster HDD will have an opportunity cost in sales of much more profitable hardware.
James
Welcome to our new member!
However, iLife is included with all new Macs, so any Mac sold means an iLife set sold. There is a difference when it comes to upgrading... buying the box. Some people may choose to hold off on the update until they update their computer.
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Welcome to our new member!
Thanks! I could have sworn I had an account on here before, but apparently not!
However, iLife is included with all new Macs, so any Mac sold means an iLife set sold.
True - but not an iLife set at full retail, hence there being an opportunity cost to consider.
Originally posted by Faasnat
Well, most of the people I know staying with Windows for software are just gamers.
I think a $399 Mac would fit for an email, web, musci & photos, and word processor machine. My parents and relatives, my wife's parents and relatives, and most of my friends' family -- this is the use of their computer ('cept those who like to play games).
Not quite sure what you're saying here. So an OS lives and dies by the amount of software for it, that would make the hardware would live and die by the amount of hardware available for it. Though the Mini doesn't leave that much room for hardware improvements (excluding external additions).
Haven't thoroughly read the thread here, but I think I've seen the complaints that the enclosure doesn't make room for the 3.5" HDs where the 500GB is cheaper.
Not the people I mentioned above who could make use of a $399 Mac
I think the Mac Mini is a pretty neat computer. Though it's not one for me, it's kinda nifty. That the thing with one company making the hardware, they can only make so many product lines geared to only so many target markets. There'll always be (sometimes big) gaps in between.
I'm not saying Apple should or should not go to clones, just that they will hit this issue with their product lineup unless they release many more products to fill the spaces which I do not thing they'll do.
I think Apple makes great products and they do seem to last well. However, I wonder if they miss their mark more often than hit them. When Apple released OS X to clone makers, the complaint was that the clone makers were taking market share from Apple and not the other market. So why did people buy the clones instead of actual Apple hardware? If Apple's hardware was so great, people should've still been buying them.
That is true. However, perception is reality and people will make their comments and opintions based on that reality (like how I did from what I think is the truth). The perception is not always fact which is why some peoples reality is totally distorted -- like there's some reality distortion field (just had to say that one).
That's the cold hard reality. As long as Apple's the only manufacturer of computers capable of running OS X, we'll have to take what Apple provides to us what Apple believes we want. The thing with the Windows, Linux, and anything else of the generic x86 market is that they have a wide range of choices when it come to purchasing computers. One thing us Mac users don't have (well, unless you use the Maxxuss or whatever his name is patch).
Well, if it could do email, web, and Office stuff (since that's all I would need for work), I would pick one up to use at the office instead of the stuff they make us use. At that price, I wouldn't have to worry about getting the company to expense it.
It's hard for them to win. There's too many people out there with too many wants and needs. One company can't release a product line for each of those, but I kinda covered that already.
You really should read more of the thread. These points have been discussed back and forth several times.
I'll just respond to the "gamers" portion.
I hope you don't think that most Windows users are gamers. That's a small portion of the platform. There is a difference between people who play some basic games part of the time, and Gamers.
The former are the vast majority. The latter are a small minority.
Originally posted by Faasnat
Maybe something like the Shuttle PC (http://www.shuttle.com). Like the XPC barebones....ahh, I dunno. I just say this cuz I was thinking about a Shuttle for a game system to take to LAN parties.
We discussed this as well.
Originally posted by Faasnat
Not sure what that implies, but anyways. I was referring to the comment about a $399 and the cost of iLife and OS X etc. etc. etc. When I bought my PowerMac, it didn't come with iLife (wasn't out yet). The PowerMacs out now include iLife, but the price point is around the same of what my model would've been equivalent to.
I mean, does it cost the full amount of the software package for Apple to include the CDs or DVDs or to build the OS off an image with this already installed?
This has been covered as well, but it bears repeating, as it isn't obvious.
One division of a company MUST, by law, pay another division of the same company, Fair Market Value, for a part or service they acquire from them.
If the iLife package has a value, as a pre-packaged product license, of, say $20, then the computer division must pay the software division $20 for each copy of the software it bundles. whether the disks are included or not is something else. It is the license that is of value, and is what the fee is for.
To the company, as a whole, the movement generates no positive, or negative cash flow, except for the bookkeeping costs involved.
But, each division must pay its way.
Originally posted by Towel
They raise costs considerably, it's just that the costs are (mostly) sunk rather than marginal. Dells pays $x per CPU sold to MS for Windows. Their cost per machine doesn't change if they sell ten million or one million. Apple invests $y million/year in OS X and iLife, and needs to make that up from the sum of all sales. You end up paying a little more marginally from Apple than Dell/MS because Apple needs to spread OS development costs comparable to MS's across one-tenth as many boxes. The fact they can compete at all is probably due in equal measure to Apple's efficiency and the combination of MS's inability to spend most of the money they collect and their unbelievably prolifigate waste of much of what they do spend.
There are two aspects to this.
The developmental costs are certainly real, and burdensome.
However, Apple sells many copies of its software at retail. While this market is smaller that MS's, by a wide margin, it is enough to help recoup those costs, as well as the marketing costs that are always associated with sales.
Apple sells several million copies of the OS every year, as well as several million copies of iLife as well.
The sales of the OS add several hundred million dollars to Apple's gross, and are considered to contribute a greater percentage (margin) to Apple's profits than hardware sales do.
Software, particularly that such as iLife costs less for Apple to upgrade, then the initial cost of developing the product, even as it adds additional products to the mix. Apple is most certainly earning a good profit on that as well.
The costs of that software is always added to the price of the computer. The question is; how much? Only Apple has those figures.
MS, being primarily a software developer, has tremendous profits vs total sales. Extremely high margins, up to 80%.
This allows them to lose money on most all of their other endeavors. The games division, for example, has been giving them a loss of about $1.2 billion per year ever since they introduced the XBox. No other company could afford such consistent losses at that level.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=91459
Originally posted by melgross
There are two aspects to this.
The developmental costs are certainly real, and burdensome.
However, Apple sells many copies of its software at retail. While this market is smaller that MS's, by a wide margin, it is enough to help recoup those costs, as well as the marketing costs that are always associated with sales.
Apple sells several million copies of the OS every year, as well as several million copies of iLife as well.
The sales of the OS add several hundred million dollars to Apple's gross, and are considered to contribute a greater percentage (margin) to Apple's profits than hardware sales do.
Software, particularly that such as iLife costs less for Apple to upgrade, then the initial cost of developing the product, even as it adds additional products to the mix. Apple is most certainly earning a good profit on that as well.
The costs of that software is always added to the price of the computer. The question is; how much? Only Apple has those figures.
MS, being primarily a software developer, has tremendous profits vs total sales. Extremely high margins, up to 80%.
This allows them to lose money on most all of their other endeavors. The games division, for example, has been giving them a loss of about $1.2 billion per year ever since they introduced the XBox. No other company could afford such consistent losses at that level.
I've discussed this on another thread, but when vista comes out I think you will see what a value ilife and OS x are. Apple sells these at a very reasonable price IMO.
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Macintosh is a package, one the has evolved over the years. Also, as sales increase, Apple does not need to make the same margin on each sale.
The software that comes bundled with the Mac is worth a lot of money as it is good stuff, especially for average users, right out of the box. The addition of a word processor would add ten-fold to the value, but I think that is coming somewhere down the line. (Appleworks was bundled for years and was a very capable program).
iLife's programs, all being made by the same maker, are all very similar (not to mention inter-connnected), thus lowering the learning curve before one can put the software to use. That means time saved, which is money saved. Add lower stress rates and a quicker realisation of pride regarding the work one has accomplished with the machine and software, and, if you ask me, an extra 200 bucks (over your 399 price) is worth the ease of use, quality, stability, lack of viruses, etc. Also, if I have any problems or questions with any part of the package (or the whole thing), I only have to call one support line. If I work hard to earn money, I want to spend that money well.
However, there are a lot of people who don't consider ease of use, integrated software, lower learning curve as part of the costs making the Mac a better value rather than a cheaper system (lack of viruses is only until virus writers start writing 'em for the Mac). They just look at the bottom line -- what's going to be coming out of their wallets and make their decision off that.
Another parts it that people who buy systems already know how to work the programs they're going to use on any platform so that part also isn't a factor in the total cost.
Yes, in the long run, there'll be less headache running OS X than something else and less time will be spent hacking away at the OS. But most people don't think of this when buying a computer.
Originally posted by Towel
They raise costs considerably, it's just that the costs are (mostly) sunk rather than marginal. Dells pays $x per CPU sold to MS for Windows. Their cost per machine doesn't change if they sell ten million or one million. Apple invests $y million/year in OS X and iLife, and needs to make that up from the sum of all sales. You end up paying a little more marginally from Apple than Dell/MS because Apple needs to spread OS development costs comparable to MS's across one-tenth as many boxes. The fact they can compete at all is probably due in equal measure to Apple's efficiency and the combination of MS's inability to spend most of the money they collect and their unbelievably prolifigate waste of much of what they do spend.
I do agree that it costs Apple money to develop these programs and they need to make it up somewhere. But it's the arguement that including the software with the hardware would raise the costs of the system that much. So if the software wasn't included and was required to be purchased from the store, would that make the hardware that much cheaper?
Originally posted by backtomac
I've discussed this on another thread, but when vista comes out I think you will see what a value ilife and OS x are. Apple sells these at a very reasonable price IMO.
Absolutely! And including it with every machine makes it even more of a bargin.
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Welcome to our new member!
However, iLife is included with all new Macs, so any Mac sold means an iLife set sold. There is a difference when it comes to upgrading... buying the box. Some people may choose to hold off on the update until they update their computer.
A Mac sold is an iLife set sold? Heh, I've been thinking it's Apple's way of getting people to use the iLife set and then when they release the new version, the users have to purchase the new one.
Not sure if buying the box is just an upgrade. It's for new and upgrading consumers. iLife from the box will install on a system even if there are no previous versions installed. An upgrade would require a previous version to be installed.
Originally posted by jrwo
Thanks! I could have sworn I had an account on here before, but apparently not!
[/B]
At least you got a welcome....
Hehehehe...
Originally posted by melgross
You really should read more of the thread. These points have been discussed back and forth several times.
I'll just respond to the "gamers" portion.
I hope you don't think that most Windows users are gamers. That's a small portion of the platform. There is a difference between people who play some basic games part of the time, and Gamers.
The former are the vast majority. The latter are a small minority.
I didn't say most Windows users are gamers. I just said most of the Windows users I know are.
Originally posted by melgross
We discussed this as well.
Heh, when you come back and there are pages and pages of discussion, I kinda quick skim through the posts.....
People here post too quickly and I'm a slow reader.
Originally posted by melgross
This has been covered as well, but it bears repeating, as it isn't obvious.
One division of a company MUST, by law, pay another division of the same company, Fair Market Value, for a part or service they acquire from them.
If the iLife package has a value, as a pre-packaged product license, of, say $20, then the computer division must pay the software division $20 for each copy of the software it bundles. whether the disks are included or not is something else. It is the license that is of value, and is what the fee is for.
To the company, as a whole, the movement generates no positive, or negative cash flow, except for the bookkeeping costs involved.
But, each division must pay its way.
Ok, I see that. Best explanation I've seen. I'll go with that.
Originally posted by Faasnat
A Mac sold is an iLife set sold? Heh, I've been thinking it's Apple's way of getting people to use the iLife set and then when they release the new version, the users have to purchase the new one.
Not sure if buying the box is just an upgrade. It's for new and upgrading consumers. iLife from the box will install on a system even if there are no previous versions installed. An upgrade would require a previous version to be installed.
The term for it is; Full Upgrade.
Most software companies used to go this route, until piracy made most of them do incremental upgrades.
Some companies still do it. But, you have to pay full price for the program, and then send in the rebate coupon, which only works if you already own the product.
The first two that come to mind are Roxio (Toast), and Symantec (Anti-Virus).