>(b) as you have admitted yourself, you
>have started making noise before checking with Apple on your situation,
>which is again inappropriate.
I did this for a reason and got the result I was after: this discussion
(over 80 messages in 2 days) has helped Apple acknowledge the limitation of
its new pricing model.
As for the rest of your rantings, let me appoligize for not bothering to
read them or reply to them. This is my last post to comments from you.
-Afshin Behnia
-----Original Message-----
From: mmalcolm crawford [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 11:43 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Unfair WO4 pricing - the attitude of apple
Afshin contributed more noise:
> > Please, shut up until you've done so, then report back on whether
> > Apple has been flexible or not (although I'm sure the rep will ask
> > you not to comment on specifics).
> >
> Please post such comments on the newly proposed webojects-talk list.
>
Gladly: until then (a) this list seems to be primarily for technical
issues,
so your rants are inappropriate here; (b) as you have admitted yourself,
you
have started making noise before checking with Apple on your situation,
which is again inappropriate.
> > Generally false. You assume they will all be using it 100% of their
> > time. The new system does not simply get to 50 transactions in one
> > minute and then stop. There is some averaging involved, so that in
> > some minutes you can get a much heavier load.
> >
> You are simply wrong.
>
You have not disproved this; I stated "generally". If all your users are
using the system 100% of the time, such that they are generating
transactions
every minute, then you do probably have an unusual case...
> I AM assuming that all are using it 100% of the time
> because they ARE using it 100% of a time. Have you ever heard of
insurance
> claims management? The users are constantly on the phone collecting
> accident facts and entering them in the system.
>
... which I would not expect from an application such as this. If you
seriously only have 50 users, and they are entering facts in response to
user
enquiry, I find it difficult to believe they could be being responsive to
claimants' input and each *sustaining* 2 transactions per minute for an
entire day, unless your UI is poorly designed requiring them to go through
multiple pages for each entry. Cf, however, my point about frames below.
You have claimed that Apple's new pricing policy is "unfair" -- I disagree
completely. It seems entirely appropriate to cost the product on its level
of usage, rather than number of users. In particular it allows for
flexibility in scaling up licenses as the popularity of a site increases.
Apple put a lot of time and effort, and consulted with a number of users,
before producing the new scheme, and it seems to address most users'
requirements far better than the old.
One issue which is worth raising is how frames are treated; it is not clear
that the transactions measured when using framesets is "optimal". I
believe
that Apple is considering this, and this is another reason why it is worth
talking to your rep. If you had couched your original request in terms of
"Apple might do well to revise its policy for frames" I suspect responses
would have been more sympathetic.
You didn't answer my question: "If you had had 51 users and Apple had said
"OK, so you owe us $17,499" would you have paid up?"
In addition to this, as others have indicated, and as I suggested in my
introductory paragraph, Apple seems to be willing to be flexible over terms
and conditions. Ranting on this list prior to checking with your rep is
simply stupid, and distracts from its primary purpose.
mmalc.
