Text 5159, 315 rader
Skriven 2005-06-18 23:20:08 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5157 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Everyone should take a pay cut
==========================================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C5745C.45262C30
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
6.5! Very funny. The 1991 release to which I was referring is =
version 1.11.
Rich
"Ellen K." <72322.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message =
news:0k0ab1hnkh9m75e3ffja29cijdd46boeh7@4ax.com...
The current version of SQL Server is a HUGELY better product than 6.5
which I guess would have been the one in 1991. 6.5 didn't even have
row-level locking, now locking is optimized on the fly.... plus the
whole OLAP thing was added, for which other folks were (and still are)
charging megabucks.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:49:02 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
<42b3988f@w3.nls.net>:
> 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_0018_01C5745C.45262C30
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> 6.5! Very =
funny. The 1991=20
release to which I was referring is version 1.11.</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>"Ellen K." <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:72322.1016@compuserve.com">72322.1016@compuserve.com</A>&g=
t;=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:0k0ab1hnkh9m75e3ffja29cijdd46boeh7@4ax.com">news:0k0ab1hnkh9=
m75e3ffja29cijdd46boeh7@4ax.com</A>...</DIV>The=20
current version of SQL Server is a HUGELY better product than =
6.5<BR>which I=20
guess would have been the one in 1991. 6.5 didn't even=20
have<BR>row-level locking, now locking is optimized on the fly.... =
plus=20
the<BR>whole OLAP thing was added, for which other folks were (and =
still=20
are)<BR>charging megabucks.<BR><BR>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:49:02 -0700, =
"Rich"=20
<@> wrote in message<BR><<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:42b3988f@w3.nls.net">42b3988f@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR><BR>&=
gt; =20
In the case of the PC, technology has provided extraordinary =
reductions in=20
manufacturing cost and increases in performance, capacity, etc. =
For=20
products of human labor costs have increased with inflation and the =
cost of=20
living and on top of that much more labor is required for today's =
software=20
because you get so much more of it.<BR>><BR>> I =
think you=20
are trying to put too much weight on the cost of a CD. It has no =
effect=20
on the labor involved in production and support which is far =
larger. =20
Software, whether computer software or movies or other forms, is not =
like=20
hardware. The fixed costs far outweigh the variable=20
costs.<BR>><BR>> 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=20
compete, they are not adding any value. They way the free market =
works=20
is that if prices in a market are too high than someone else can come =
along=20
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=20
unhappy. SQL Server cost much less than Oracle so Oracle had to =
lower=20
its prices. The same was true of Word, Excel, and the other =
Office=20
applications which have only gotten =
cheaper.<BR>><BR>> Since=20
I looked it up to reply I may as well =
share.<BR>><BR>> When=20
Microsoft Office for Windows was released in 1990 containing Word, =
Excel, and=20
PowerPoint it was $995. In 1991 Mail was added and the price =
dropped to=20
$750. Today, the current much more functional versions of those=20
applications are included in Microsoft Office Standard Edition 2003 =
for $399=20
SRP for full packaged retail non-upgrade with a 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=20
expensive.<BR>><BR>> 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 =
for 10=20
users though the current free version may be a fairer =
comparison. For an=20
unlimited number of users the current full retail price is =
$3899. In=20
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>.<BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR=
>> =20
"Geo" <<A href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42b379d1@w3.nls.net">news:42b379d1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>>=
=20
Ok so what about the gains of what is included in a PC today, why =
didn't the=20
added features and speed and capacities allow the price for the system =
you=20
really want to remain at the $5000 level instead of falling to the =
$1000 level=20
now? You make it sound like perceived value is all you need to justify =
a high=20
price.<BR>><BR>> In the OS world even if I assume your=20
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 =
and it=20
doesn't look like there ever will be any of the free market =
competition=20
motivated price reductions.<BR>><BR>> =20
Geo.<BR>> "Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42b2eab4$1@w3.nls.net">news:42b2eab4$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
> =20
I see you edited out my statements on ASM before reply. Needless =
to say=20
I disagree that any productivity gains are even within orders of =
magnitude to=20
the gains in what is included.<BR>><BR>> =20
Rich<BR>><BR>> "Geo" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42b2a55f$1@w3.nls.net">news:42b2a55f$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
> =20
"Rich" <@> 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=20
product back<BR>> when memory and =
disk was=20
1000x more expensive contains much more than=20
that<BR>> old version even if you pay =
the=20
same.<<<BR>><BR>> I don't =
disagree=20
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=20
costs less (internet or CD compared =
to<BR>> =20
floppy), and the market is many MANY times larger than it was so that=20
you<BR>> sell more copies of the same =
amount=20
of work yet these have yeilded no =
price<BR>> =20
cuts.<BR>><BR>> =20
Geo.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C5745C.45262C30--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|