Text 5142, 110 rader
Skriven 2005-06-18 23:44:28 av Adam Flinton (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 5115 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Everyone should take a pay cut
==========================================
From: Adam Flinton <adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com>

Rich wrote:
>    New software is not less expensive.

Latest copy of mandriva was free (to me & to others).

I sometimes play with various incarnations of knoppix.

Again those differing incarnations were all free (to me & others).

> Let's say you simply wanted to
> create a product that was competitive with what existed 10 years ago
> instead of competitive with today's software.  It will cost more than it
> did to produce 10 years ago because for as many man years as it takes to
> produce those man years cost more today.  It won't take you fewer man
> years to produce.
>

Indeed but many solid solutions to common problems will be available for free
coz once they're written...

So then you're left with "uncommon problems" & people pay less for sorting
uncommon problems (specialist vs mass market).


Adam


>    Your attempt at math is way off.  You have several fatal flaws
> including your continued attempt to pretend that fixed costs have not
> increased dramatically, pretending that variable costs have not
> increased, pretending that the revenue to support the increased costs
> and investment is also unchanging, and that there is no inflation
> either.  This is above and beyond your implication that a more
> successful product should not actually be expected to be more profitable
> particularly since this is what provides the motivation for investment
> and innovation.  In regard to competition, the success of such products
> and the dramatic growth of the market that you made such a big deal of
> create openings for competition that keep prices at the right level.
>
>    Now, George, for your own businesses you are free to drop prices to
> progressively become less profitable, if you ever were.  You are also
> free to enter any market where you believe that prices are too high and
> sell a competitive product for less.  This is what Microsoft has a
> reputation for with Office being a prime example of a product that sold
> for less than the products with which it competed and as we have
> discussed has continued to drop in price while increasing in value.
>
> Rich
>
>
>     "Geo" <georger@nls.net <mailto:georger@nls.net>> wrote in message
>     news:42b3a893@w3.nls.net...
>     "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42b3988f@w3.nls.net...
>
>      >> much more labor is required for today's software because you get
>     so much
>     more of it.
>
>     I don't agree, it's not "today's" software that requires more labor,
>     it's
>     mature software that requires more because it suffers from the
>     featuritis
>     problem of trying to add every feature anyone could ever ask for. New
>     software is inexpensive to make compared to the past.
>
>      >>   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.
189
>     44/buy.software/qx/productdetail.html).  Volume licenced copies are
>     obviously less expensive.<<
>
>
>     Ok, now lets try to figure out how many copies of office were sold
>     in 1990
>     compared to 2003. From 1988 to 1990 (figure a 3 year life time for a PC)
>     there were 44 million pc's sold, so lets assume a copy of office
>     sold for
>     each one (zero piracy), that's 44 million copies of office times
>     $995 equals
>     43 billion dollars maximum market size.
>
>     In 2001 thru 2003 there were 405 million pc's sold, times $399 equals a
>     maximum market size of 161 billion dollars or a 360% increase in
>     sales if
>     you didn't gain any market share. So just based on market growth the
>     price
>     should have come down to $276 SRP not $400, and that doesn't take into
>     account the fact that office gained a hell of a lot of market share
>     during
>     that time period. If it's market share went from 40% to 80% (not
>     unlikely)
>     then you can take that $276 down to $138.
>
>     PC figures from http://www.pegasus3d.com/total_share.html
>
>     Geo.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)