Text 5160, 115 rader
Skriven 2005-06-19 01:51:52 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 5159 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Everyone should take a pay cut
==========================================
From: Ellen K. <72322.1016@compuserve.com>

Was that already from Sybase?

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:20:09 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
<42b50d9a@w3.nls.net>:

>   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.

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