Why is the P so expensive?

[ajreed]

From the point of view of a first time buyer why is DP6 £249 and PGD6 only £69?

Ok DP6 has got web design features - but those can be obtained by buying WD6 for £39, and that then removes four red crosses from the list.

That still leaves £141 as the cost of the top eight features shown in the 'compare' chart http://www.xara.com/uk/products/designer/compare/

Not being a professional user - what is it that makes these features (quite insignificant in some case) so expensive? Is it that they are deceptively hard to code? Is it licensing fees etc?

Just curious - and any explanations would be enlightening.

[ankhor]

From the point of view of a first time buyer why is DP6 £249 and PGD6 only £69?

Dont worry, I don`t get the pricing scheme anymore too.

[pauland]

what is it that makes these features (quite insignificant in some case) so expensive? Is it that they are deceptively hard to code? Is it licensing fees etc?

Just curious - and any explanations would be enlightening.

No explanations, just vague speculation. The price differrential puts the software into seperate market segments. Professionals are always prepared to pay more for good tools than amateurs, so cost isn't quite so sensitive.

The cost of anything is rarely equated directly to the difficullty of producing it. It's ultimately a guestion of supply and demand. Companies generally try and maximise profit - not something that is related to the cost of supply.

You suggest that Pro is expensive. Professional designers would say that it is cheap ( and more flexible) when compared to the professional graphics leader - Adobe Illustrator.

I think that in general there appears to be a move to differentiate the Pro and standard versions of the software for differrent market sectors and maximise profits where price sensitivity is less (the pro market).

Comparatively speaking, the software is cheap.

[Daniel]

I've got to agree with Paul, Xara's software is cheap. Xtreme Standard is priced ludicrously low.

To put Xara's pricing into perspective, I've just checked the prices for the other applications I use daily: I consider myself to be in what was Xara's target audience and where, hopefully, the Pro software will be aiming for future versions. I am self-employed, doing web development and technical support.

• Adobe's Creative Suite 5 Web Premium is £1600 new, or £360 as an upgrade from the previous version. I perhaps don't use it all equally, especially now Xara's import filters are better but I do use Dreamweaver and the new CS5 version of that alone is £420 new, or £150 as an upgrade from the previous version.
• Sage 50 Accounts: pretty much the standard accounting program is £640 new or £330 as an upgrade from the previous version
• Microsoft Office 2010 is £160 new... and with this version, there isn't even an upgrade price! The cheaper Home/Student licences don't include Outlook so no business will even consider them.
• Windows 7 Pro is £150 new, about £120 as an upgrade from the previous versions

Put against that list, £249 new for Xtreme Pro or £79 as an upgrade from the previous version is right where you'd expect it. The upgrade price is less than 2 hours' chargeable work so assuming the releases are once every 18 months it only has to save about 90 seconds a week to pay for itself and I reckon the easier bitmap cropping will do that on its own.

£69 new or £29 as an upgrade from the previous version for Xtreme Standard puts it in the "too cheap to be considered credible" category. It's a fantastic price for hobby users, but businesses expect to pay way more than that - and provided that the improvements keep coming, professional users will be happy to keep paying.

(As an example, a lot of companies I work for need nothing more from their office applications on most of their PCs than a basic word processor. They won't use OpenOffice because it's free and "can't be any good". They buy Microsoft Office every time.)

[JET]

a lot of companies...won't use OpenOffice because it's free and "can't be any good".

On the other hand, many companies of all sizes do use MySQL.

JET

[ajreed]

Interesting thoughts - I guess if it was any more expensive I and countless other non professionals would not consider it justified just as a 'for fun' piece of software.

I've been with Xara since their Computer Concepts days and their software has always stood out head and shoulders above the competition.

Does make you wonder

Adobe's Creative Suite 5 Web Premium is £1600 new, or £360 as an upgrade from the previous version

what super extra bells and whistle you'de get with that.

From some comments I would conclude not a lot. Just a price tag that gives the impression it ought to be good which I guess makes it attractive to those professionals who think like that. Not getting at anyone here - but I know companies can be blinkered.

Interesting thoughts though....

[pauland]

On the other hand, many companies of all sizes do use MySQL.

JET

LOL, give Oracle time.. (they now own MySQL)

[I should also say that there is a support option for MySQL and many companies will pay for that and enhanced options]

[StevenWWinters]

Another factor may be license fees for 3rd party items such as Pantone color support or PDF/X export. Not sure which, if any features this applies to, but I believe some fall into this category.

[pauland]

Interesting thoughts - I guess if it was any more expensive I and countless other non professionals would not consider it justified just as a 'for fun' piece of software.

I've been with Xara since their Computer Concepts days and their software has always stood out head and shoulders above the competition.

Does make you wonder what super extra bells and whistle you'de get with that.

From some comments I would conclude not a lot. Just a price tag that gives the impression it ought to be good which I guess makes it attractive to those professionals who think like that. Not getting at anyone here - but I know companies can be blinkered.

Interesting thoughts though....

Adobe has a stranglehold at the moment. Their ace card is being early to market for their creativity software, they addressed their weaknesses by buying Macromedia and getting Flash, Dreameaver and fireworks. Since then they have made the workflow between these programs easier and easier.

On a per-program basis they are individually very expensive for an individual, but the commercial world pays well so many professionals can absorb the cost in their fees. Adobe tempts owners of individual software to "upgrade" to a suite that includes software for a specific workflow - publishing, web development, video, etc. The upgrades are tempting because you get a lot of extra software for a lot less than individual ticket prices. This ties you into higher upgrade costs since you now have to upgrade a complete suite, not an individual product.

Xara software attempts to do in one program what several programs in the Adobe offering would do by working together. Xara does many things well and often better than the Adobe equivalents, but to counterbalance that it has gaping holes where it cannot compete with a single Adobe program or the suite as a whole. Xara is a jack of all trades, masters a few and does a workable job at others. Some things it just doesn't do (HTML editor for example).

So Adobe have a clever strategy and it isn't just the case that businesses buy Adobe software because it is expensive. They buy it because it (generally) works and it addresses professional workflows so well that it has become the creative interoperability standard and benchmark.

If you use Adobe software, you know that you can co-operate with other businesses, exchanging designs and interoperability shouldn't be an issue. Exchanges of creative materials are made using files that are to Adobe standard formats.

Xara software can suffer a little when used in such workflows. It may not correctly import or export files seamlessly from/to Adobe software.

That interoperability is a lesser concern for people working individually, but can be a problem for those having to work with others and adapt to their workflow which is inevitably Adobe based.

People pay high Adobe prices because they know it works and they know their associates are making the same buying decisions.

You'll find that small businesses offering a self-contained service will often use old versions of Adobe software. People like me have to upgrade to the latest Adobe versions because the people I work with expect me to upply or take files to the latest standards. Adobe help their bottom line along by restricting file exports in their software, so currently I am using CS3, but I have a customer who used Flash 8 and illustrator CS2. They upgraded Flash (wel lthey bought the CS5 suite) and now CS5 no longer exports to Flash CS3, so now I HAVE to upgrade my software to continue working with this client.

I'm not sure if that explains why Adobe does so well or not!

[ajreed]

You make some good points Paul - which sort of makes me even more grateful Xara took the route they did - that gave me and thousands of other users the opportunity to enjoy the delights of Xtreme et al (or perhaps that should have been Computer Concepts and the delights of Artworks - but showing my age I guess )

I think I now more clearly understand where Xara and its products sit in the overall scheme of things and I guess I ought to be very happy that this is the way things are - and I am.

Appreciate all your comments