Charles Mills wrote:
[...]
whereas the first time a big shop, upon being quoted the price, said "is
that one-time or per-month?" I realized I was leaving a heck of a lot of
money on the table with the big shops.

So I quickly joined the party and went to tiered (or as it was called then,
"group") pricing.

So, I see you joined the party because of incomes, not because it is more fair model, or other reason. Just - bigger isntallation means more money to spend. Using this idea bigger datacenters should pay more for electricity or tape carts (blank). Why not ?
IBM delivers 8-CP machine, but the CPs are disabled, unless you pay for it.
Disclaimer: I don't want to judge it. I just observe.

[...]
There were months I worked
12 hours a day six days a week and was $50,000 poorer at the end of the
month than I was at the beginning. I don't care how crappy your job is, I'll
bet it's a better deal than that.

It is definitely *not* software company specificity! It is specificity of business at all. Sometimes you invest, work hard, but you have no incomes.

[...]
Does this answer your question? The answer really is in the first paragraph;
the rest of it is just a long digression on the software business.

It wasn't my question, however I think you didn't answered why bigger installation should pay more. In my opinion MSU-based fee is sometimes justified, while sometimes is not.
Examples:
(justified) DB2, CICS - you make more transactions, more workload, you pay more. But you *USE* the software more. (not justified IMHO). Debugger. Assumed you use it on development LPAR, but you have to pay for total MSU. You production grows up, while development not. Your fees grows up, but not the usage. In fact VWLC changed the scenario significantly.

--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to