Paying for Great Software is like Paying for Fine Dining

McDonalds makes more money for many reasons, and I don't think they are all specific to that industry.

McDonals is cheap. Not everyone lives on a budget that makes it possible for them to eat at French Laundry. For many that it is possible, they can't justify it because the extra expense is better spent on other items that will have a greater impact on their lives.

McDonalds is quick. You are less likely to encounter extended delays that impact your schedule in any way. McDonalds taking four times as long to deliver a hamburger to you probably means you had to wait an extra 5-10 minutes.

McDonals is convenient. There's probably one close by. As we've covered, it's also quick. Getting and eating your food is a very simple, well understood process.

I think you can apply this to many markets. The there are high-end products that work by offering quality, and low-end products that work by offering some combination of convenience, speed and low-cost.

Software doesn't (yet) offer the same aesthetic and emotional experiences of fine dining. But aesthetics and emotions are important to the software experience. I think that's the author's rather modest argument, that those experiences are parts of the puzzle in addition to price point, value-add, etc.

I believe they still do. I think there are over 200 of them now.

Only you have to pay for fine dining (either literally or reciprocally) whereas much great software is free.

You just described the core of the analogy: experience.

There are many cases where I and others choose much more expensive applications to which there are fine inexpensive (or free) alternatives. Just knowing the amount of “unnecessary” design or development work may be enough to increase pleasure of use.

Of course, the extra work may also have directly beneficial effects, functional, esthetic, or otherwise. Fine dining tends to be tasty.

Agree; very strange. Fine dining is a luxury, great software can pay for itself many times over.

Another way the analogy works, though: people hate paying for either with their own money. It's easier to spend when your company (or client) is paying for it.

Well, Apple "fanboys" certainly like to talk about the experience of a software product.

There is definitely an emotional factor to software choice.

I think Open Source is hard to map to a physical analogy due to how it exploits communal intelligence and effort with close to zero cost copying and distribution. It really only works for knowledge.

I think you've missed the point of fine dining, or maybe it's just not for you. It's not about the utility of refilling your hunger meter. Like the article says, you're paying for the whole experience, and the level of craftsmanship. I also highly doubt you can make a superior meal, that's a little offensive to people who focus their lives and careers on the art of food. It's subjective, of course, but similar to how some companies think they don't need software because their home-grown spreadsheet solution is "superior" (i.e. cheaper).

I mean, if it's just not your thing, that's fine, but your comment is stereotypical of the purely utilitarian and rather smug perspective often taken by nerdy types. No doubt you find fashion equally frivolous and can't fathom why people would pay above Target prices for clothing.

Poor software can be as dangerous as poor food. And there is, Professional tools, eg Paint -> Pixelmator -> Photoshop (features more than UI, but you get the point).

I imagine Mcdonalds actually employs a lot of very skilled "chefs" (for want of a better word) who design food that will appeal to the largest cross section of people possible and can be cooked by people on minimum wage.

You could analogize that to developing software that is easy to use, has mass market appeal and is easy to deploy.

Not saying it's a great analogy, but it seems like SaaS would be the McDonalds (scalable, commoditized) whereas bespoke software is the fancy restaurant meal.

It doesn't really seem to hold up though, or say much either way.