mike wilson mused: > > > > John Francis wrote: > > > mike wilson mused: > > > >>Not sure I agree with you (I don't think the photographer analogy stands > >>up at all) and I still don't understand why music CDs are so much > >>cheaper, given the development costs are similar. > > > > > > > > You're confusing unit manufacturing cost with product development cost. > > > > A decent music CD can be put together in a year by maybe a couple of > > dozen people, probably not even working full time on making the CD. > > > > Something like PhotoShop involves more like a couple of hundred people > > during a multi-year development phase, not to mention needing product > > support (there's no post-sales support on a music CD). Factor in the > > fact that software engineers tend to be rather higher paid than most > > musicians, and a 40-to-one price ratio doesn't seem that ridiculous. > > > > > > No I'm not. My argument was based on an orchestra, that has years of > training and months of development costs for a performace. The higher > pay is a function of the higher retail price which is a function of the > amount customers are willing to pay. Or believe they need to.
If an orchestra only gave one performance every three years (or if they gave up public performances, and tried to survive solely on CD sales) you'd be paying a lot more that $600 for a ticket or for that CD. In any case, your legal choice is whether or not to buy the product. If the company sets the price too high then there is an opportunity for somebody else to step in and sell a comparable product for less. Rationalise it as much as you like, but at the end of the day you're stealing something because you don't want to pay the purchase price.
