You may have a point, but our view is that good software shouldn't have to cost an arm and a leg to be good. Mainly we are a consulting firm, and software started as a "sideline", but once you get over a couple hundred clients, you have to devote more time and people resources to it, so now it's a whole separate "division". We make sure that our software does what "theirs" does plus extra features. We have a good number of clients running it, but IBM and CA, even though they are far more expensive, and with less features in some cases, still has a far greater market share.
I'm not sure hiking the price will help in this case. We try to cater to the sites that want value, and we would be only hurting them by upping to price to see if it would increase our market share. We have two new products coming out this year, maybe since neither one has any competition we should put a outrageously high price on them:). I seriously doubt that we will do that though, it just isn't the way we work. Brian On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:48:14 -0600, Chase, John <[email protected]> wrote: > >There still exists a mindset that believes, for example, that since >functionality ABC "normally" costs between $xxxK and $yyyK, then "your" >offer of functionality ABC at $xxxK/20 "can't be very good", or "you >don't have the resources to provide the kind of support we need", etc. > >IOW, maybe your product's price is "too cheap". > > -jc- > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
