Text 5111, 289 rader
Skriven 2005-06-17 20:49:02 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5104 av Geo (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Everyone should take a pay cut
==========================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01C5737D.FEB295B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In the case of the PC, technology has provided extraordinary =
reductions in manufacturing cost and increases in performance, capacity, = etc.
For products of human labor costs have increased with inflation = and the cost
of living and on top of that much more labor is required = for today's software
because you get so much more of it.
I think you are trying to put too much weight on the cost of a CD. =
It has no effect on the labor involved in production and support which = is far
larger. Software, whether computer software or movies or other = forms, is not
like hardware. The fixed costs far outweigh the variable = costs.
I disagree with your nonsense that copyrights, extended or not, limit =
competition. If your only competition are people that would have to = copy the
product with which they intend to compete, they are not adding = any value.
They way the free market works is that if prices in a market = are too high
than someone else can come along and produce a competing = product and still be
able to undercut the existing price in that market. =
If someone can't do this then prices are obviously not too high. =
Microsoft has a reputation for doing just this, entering a market with = lower
prices. This is the reason folks like Oracle are unhappy. SQL = Server cost
much less than Oracle so Oracle had to lower its prices. = The same was true
of Word, Excel, and the other Office applications = which have only gotten
cheaper.
Since I looked it up to reply I may as well share.
When Microsoft Office for Windows was released in 1990 containing =
Word, Excel, and PowerPoint it was $995. In 1991 Mail was added and the =
price dropped to $750. Today, the current much more functional versions = of
those applications are included in Microsoft Office Standard Edition = 2003 for
$399 SRP for full packaged retail non-upgrade with a street = price 30% lower =
(http://www.atomicpark.com/xq/aspx/microsoft-office-2003-standard/prodid.=
18944/buy.software/qx/productdetail.html). Volume licenced copies are =
obviously less expensive.
I can't find the SQL Server price before July 1991. The price then =
was $2995 for 10 users and $7995 for unlimited users. The current full =
retail price is $1478 or $2249 for 10 users though the current free = version
may be a fairer comparison. For an unlimited number of users = the current
full retail price is $3899. In other words, the price is = half what it used
to be. See =
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:42b379d1@w3.nls.net...
Ok so what about the gains of what is included in a PC today, why =
didn't the added features and speed and capacities allow the price for = the
system you really want to remain at the $5000 level instead of = falling to the
$1000 level now? You make it sound like perceived value = is all you need to
justify a high price.
In the OS world even if I assume your feature/productivity =
relationship is right you still have the decrease in distribution media = costs
and a huge cost reduction because of of the increase in volume = (it's the same
labor being sold over and over again, there is very = minimal cost to producing
1000x the number of copies once the software = is written). But because some
software (windows, autocad, office) has = very little real competition, the
prices have not dropped. Add to that = the entry costs of writing software in
an extended copyright and patent = laden environment and it doesn't look like
there ever will be any of the = free market competition motivated price
reductions.
Geo.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42b2eab4$1@w3.nls.net...
I see you edited out my statements on ASM before reply. Needless =
to say I disagree that any productivity gains are even within orders of =
magnitude to the gains in what is included.
Rich
"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:42b2a55f$1@w3.nls.net...
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42b2533b@w3.nls.net...
>> So to repeat, my point is that the current version of a =
product back
when memory and disk was 1000x more expensive contains much more =
than that
old version even if you pay the same.<<
I don't disagree that you do get more for the same money, what I'm =
saying is
that the programmers are more efficient and this cancels out your =
"contains
more", distribution and media costs less (internet or CD compared =
to
floppy), and the market is many MANY times larger than it was so =
that you
sell more copies of the same amount of work yet these have yeilded =
no price
cuts.
Geo.
------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01C5737D.FEB295B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> In the case of the PC, =
technology has=20
provided extraordinary reductions in manufacturing cost and increases in =
performance, capacity, etc. For products of human labor costs have =
increased with inflation and the cost of living and on top of that much =
more=20
labor is required for today's software because you get so much more of=20
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I think you are trying to =
put too much=20
weight on the cost of a CD. It has no effect on the labor involved =
in=20
production and support which is far larger. Software, whether =
computer=20
software or movies or other forms, is not like hardware. The fixed =
costs=20
far outweigh the variable costs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I disagree with your =
nonsense that=20
copyrights, extended or not, limit competition. If your only =
competition=20
are people that would have to copy the product with which they intend to =
compete, they are not adding any value. They way the free market = works
is=20
that if prices in a market are too high than someone else can =
come=20
along and produce a competing product and still be able to undercut the =
existing=20
price in that market. If someone can't do this then prices are =
obviously=20
not too high. Microsoft has a reputation for doing just this, = entering
a=20
market with lower prices. This is the reason folks like Oracle are =
unhappy. SQL Server cost much less than Oracle so Oracle had to = lower
its=20
prices. The same was true of Word, Excel, and the other Office=20
applications which have only gotten cheaper.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Since I looked it up to =
reply I may as=20
well share.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> When Microsoft Office for =
Windows was=20
released in 1990 containing Word, Excel, and PowerPoint it was =
$995. In=20
1991 Mail was added and the price dropped to $750. Today, the = current
much=20
more functional versions of those applications are included in Microsoft =
Office=20
Standard Edition 2003 for $399 SRP for full packaged retail non-upgrade = with
a=20
street price 30% lower (<A=20
href=3D"http://www.atomicpark.com/xq/aspx/microsoft-office-2003-standard/=
prodid.18944/buy.software/qx/productdetail.html">http://www.atomicpark.co=
m/xq/aspx/microsoft-office-2003-standard/prodid.18944/buy.software/qx/pro=
ductdetail.html</A>). =20
Volume licenced copies are obviously less expensive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I can't find the SQL =
Server price=20
before July 1991. The price then was $2995 for 10 users and $7995 =
for=20
unlimited users. The current full retail price is $1478 = or
$2249=20
for 10 users though the current free version may be a fairer =
comparison. =20
For an unlimited number of users the current full retail price is =
$3899. =20
In other words, the price is half what it used to be. See <A=20
href=3D"http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx">http://www.mi=
crosoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx</A>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote=20
in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42b379d1@w3.nls.net">news:42b379d1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ok so what about the gains of what is =
included in=20
a PC today, why didn't the added features and speed and capacities =
allow the=20
price for the system you really want to remain at the $5000 level =
instead of=20
falling to the $1000 level now? You make it sound like perceived value =
is all=20
you need to justify a high price.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In the OS world even if I assume your =
feature/productivity relationship is right you still have the =
decrease in=20
distribution media costs and a huge cost reduction because of of the =
increase=20
in volume (it's the same labor being sold over and over again, there =
is very=20
minimal cost to producing 1000x the number of copies once the software =
is=20
written). But because some software (windows, autocad, office) has =
very little=20
real competition, the prices have not dropped. Add to that the entry =
costs of=20
writing software in an extended copyright and patent laden =
environment=20
and it doesn't look like there ever will be any of the free market =
competition=20
motivated price reductions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42b2eab4$1@w3.nls.net">news:42b2eab4$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I see you edited out =
my statements=20
on ASM before reply. Needless to say I disagree that any =
productivity=20
gains are even within orders of magnitude to the gains in what is=20
included.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Geo" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42b2a55f$1@w3.nls.net">news:42b2a55f$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>"Rich"=20
<@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42b2533b@w3.nls.net">news:42b2533b@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>>=
> =20
So to repeat, my point is that the current version of a product=20
back<BR>when memory and disk was 1000x more expensive contains =
much more=20
than that<BR>old version even if you pay the =
same.<<<BR><BR>I don't=20
disagree that you do get more for the same money, what I'm saying=20
is<BR>that the programmers are more efficient and this cancels out =
your=20
"contains<BR>more", distribution and media costs less (internet or =
CD=20
compared to<BR>floppy), and the market is many MANY times larger =
than it=20
was so that you<BR>sell more copies of the same amount of work yet =
these=20
have yeilded no=20
price<BR>cuts.<BR><BR>Geo.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>=
</BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01C5737D.FEB295B0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|