Text 5178, 362 rader
Skriven 2005-06-19 13:02:04 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5160 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_0036_01C574CF.17F1EBF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It started with Sybase. I don't know if they were still involved =
then.
Rich
"Ellen K." <72322.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message =
news:mfcab19udgckvhc931t8ggusi2sif2p5tt@4ax.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.
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C574CF.17F1EBF0
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> It started with =
Sybase. I don't=20
know if they were still involved then.</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:mfcab19udgckvhc931t8ggusi2sif2p5tt@4ax.com">news:mfcab19udgc=
kvhc931t8ggusi2sif2p5tt@4ax.com</A>...</DIV>Was=20
that already from Sybase?<BR><BR>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:20:09 -0700, =
"Rich"=20
<@> wrote in message<BR><<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:42b50d9a@w3.nls.net">42b50d9a@w3.nls.net</A>>:<BR><BR>&=
gt; =20
6.5! Very funny. The 1991 release to which I was referring =
is=20
version 1.11.<BR>><BR>>Rich<BR>><BR>> "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>...<BR>> =20
The current version of SQL Server is a HUGELY better product than=20
6.5<BR>> which I guess would have been the one in =
1991. =20
6.5 didn't even have<BR>> row-level locking, now locking is =
optimized=20
on the fly.... plus the<BR>> whole OLAP thing was added, for =
which=20
other folks were (and still are)<BR>> charging=20
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>> =20
> In the case of the PC, technology has provided =
extraordinary=20
reductions in manufacturing cost and increases in performance, =
capacity,=20
etc. For products of human labor costs have increased with =
inflation and=20
the cost of living and on top of that much more labor is required for =
today's=20
software because you get so much more of it.<BR>> =
><BR>> =20
> I think you are trying to put too much weight on the =
cost of=20
a CD. It has no effect on the labor involved in production and =
support=20
which is far larger. Software, whether computer software or =
movies or=20
other forms, is not like hardware. The fixed costs far outweigh =
the=20
variable costs.<BR>> ><BR>> > I =
disagree=20
with your nonsense that copyrights, extended or not, limit =
competition. =20
If your only competition are people that would have to copy the =
product with=20
which they intend to compete, they are not adding any value. =
They way=20
the free market works is that if prices in a market are too high than =
someone=20
else can come along and produce a competing product and still be able =
to=20
undercut the existing price in that market. If someone can't do =
this=20
then prices are obviously not too high. Microsoft has a =
reputation for=20
doing just this, entering a market with lower prices. This is =
the reason=20
folks like Oracle are unhappy. SQL Server cost much less than =
Oracle so=20
Oracle had to lower its prices. The same was true of Word, =
Excel, and=20
the other Office applications which have only gotten =
cheaper.<BR>> =20
><BR>> > Since I looked it up to reply I =
may as=20
well share.<BR>> ><BR>> > When =
Microsoft=20
Office for Windows was released in 1990 containing Word, Excel, and =
PowerPoint=20
it was $995. In 1991 Mail was added and the price dropped to =
$750. =20
Today, the current much more functional versions of those applications =
are=20
included in Microsoft Office Standard Edition 2003 for $399 SRP for =
full=20
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 expensive.<BR>> =20
><BR>> > I can't find the SQL Server price =
before=20
July 1991. The price then was $2995 for 10 users and $7995 for =
unlimited=20
users. The current full retail price is $1478 or $2249 for 10 =
users=20
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>> =20
><BR>> >Rich<BR>> ><BR>> =
> "Geo"=20
<<A href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote =
in message=20
<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=20
didn't the added features and speed and capacities allow the price for =
the=20
system you really want to remain at the $5000 level instead of falling =
to the=20
$1000 level now? You make it sound like perceived value is all you =
need to=20
justify a high price.<BR>> ><BR>> > In =
the OS=20
world even if I assume your feature/productivity relationship is right =
you=20
still have the decrease in distribution media costs and a huge cost =
reduction=20
because of of the increase in volume (it's the same labor being sold =
over and=20
over again, there is very minimal cost to producing 1000x the number =
of copies=20
once the software is written). But because some software (windows, =
autocad,=20
office) has very little real competition, the prices have not dropped. =
Add to=20
that the entry costs of writing software in an extended copyright and =
patent=20
laden environment and it doesn't look like there ever will be any of =
the free=20
market competition motivated price reductions.<BR>> =20
><BR>> > Geo.<BR>> =
> "Rich"=20
<@> 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=20
ASM before reply. Needless to say I disagree that any =
productivity gains=20
are even within orders of magnitude to the gains in what is=20
included.<BR>> ><BR>> > =20
Rich<BR>> ><BR>> =
> "Geo"=20
<<A href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>> wrote =
in message=20
<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=20
is that the current version of a product back<BR>> =20
> when memory and disk was 1000x more =
expensive contains much more than that<BR>> =20
> old version even if you pay the=20
same.<<<BR>> ><BR>> =20
> I don't disagree that you do get =
more for=20
the same money, what I'm saying is<BR>> =20
> that the programmers are more =
efficient and=20
this cancels out your "contains<BR>> =20
> more", distribution and media costs =
less=20
(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=20
same amount of work yet these have yeilded no price<BR>> =20
> cuts.<BR>> =
><BR>> =20
> Geo.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C574CF.17F1EBF0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|