>Per seat or machine capacity does not reflect the value to the buyer; I disagree with that statement. While I've not been a big fan of capacity based pricing (because the whole model sucks), usage basis does make sense. It's just a matter of what is your usage metric.
Seats, or transactions, make more sense than MSUs. >my cars costs the same whether I drive alone or carry five passengers. A weak analogy. >If I need more, I step up to a minivan or commercial bus, Which costs more. So, you are paying for more. >but in no case would the dealer double the price to sell the same vehicle to a >larger company. True, but the dealer is probably selling more to the larger company. This is where the analogy breaks down. A bigger machine costs more. In general, it drives more work through and (potentially) has the effect of discovering more issues, hence more support. Why I don't buy the whole support costs more at bigger sites argument, I do understand the rationale. The pricing model should be closer to a utilility/business based one than a Capacity based one. Look at hydro, phone (mobile or landline) or even water. We pay for kilowatt hours, minutes/long distance, or litres, not by how big our stereo is, how pretty our phone is, or whatever. What we need is a billable business metric, such as invoices, queries, or even the number of beds (hospital example). By definition, larger companies are going to do more business volume than small ones. So, if we can grab a metric, other than capacity, we should hold on tight. Unfortunately, RMF/SMF doesn't measure that. So, we are stuck with a generalised metric, that satisfies nobody. - I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation! Kimota! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
