> bigger datacenters should pay more for electricity Well, yes, they probably do. Not more per kwh, but more in total. Less per kwh, but more in total. And that's how most MIPS charging works also, I believe.
As I more-or-less said in my last para., no one thinks anyone should pay more, but most think some should pay less. Unfortunately, some paying more is a necessary corollary of some paying less. > you joined the party because of incomes, not because it is more fair model You bet! And yes, I thought I was quite frank in my first post about how yes, we were "looking for more efficient ways of extracting money from customers." It sounds like a bad thing when you phrase it that way, but we were in that business, we had significant expenses, and were not - if you look at the month-to-month picture - consistently profitable or consistently cash flow positive. We needed money from customers to survive, and I think greater efficiency is generally a good thing. While we're on the topic, the "right" way to charge more IMHO is to charge for something that parallels the business benefit. We were a file transfer product. I would have liked to have charged by the megabyte, not by the MSU, but we had no rigorous and enforceable way of doing so - plus we would have been a small company fighting the industry "standard" which is seldom a good thing. The sales guys say "when you explain, you lose." The MIPS pricing model is terrible - it's just the best model we had. I used to give the example that you buy a couch for $500. Several years later you add a new bedroom onto your house - and the furniture store calls you up and says that now that your house has more square feet, you owe them another $100 for the couch. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 5:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: the "why" of tiered pricing (Was RE: Using Java in batch on z/OS?) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
