When OS X Leopard was released, my Mac was fortunately new enough to qualify for a special £5 upgrade, but the vast majority of users had to pay about $129. Snow Leopard was different; for an upgrade, Apple only charged about $30 (£25).

£25 for a piece of software, even one as important as an operating system, is much more realistic than a £100 pricetag. I think it is unreasonable to ask personal users for anything more than £60 or£70

High price tags force people to piracy, yet for many years companies like Apple and Microsoft continued using them. I suspect Adobe loses a small fortune over its £600 charge for Photoshop, because I imagine that most of their end-users actually acquired the software illegally. Adobe kindly charge students a discounted rate of only £150: how they expect a student to afford that amazes me.

High price tags force people to piracy.

I have no problems pay $10 or $20 for a decent piece of shareware, and I often buy bundles of discounted shareware, but I dislike being expected to pay a fortune for a commercially-developed program which has hundreds of features which I’ll never even need to use.

Microsoft try to offer users packages containing only software they’ll need, but this confuses many.

Only one package should be sold. That package should only include essential programs, with additional programs being sold individually if needed. Not only would this be beneficial to the average company, but would allow companies like Microsoft to accurately judge the popularity of software like OneNote based on the demand for it