At 6:28 PM -0800 3/9/99, Marc Respass wrote:
>"Mark F. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>> At 7:14 AM -0800 3/9/99, Troy D. Casey wrote:
>>> With the exception of the occaisional "special promotions", I
>>>have never been happy with WO pricing. Hey, I *know* its great
>>>technology, I *know* almost all the alternatives suck in comparison, but
>>>hey -- give us a break!!
>>
>> After doing research to select the best AppServer for a project I'm working
>> on, I found out that the *serious* competition charges the same amount.
>> $50,000 seems to be the going rate for unlimited transactions.
>>
>> Others are still on the $25,000 per CPU unlimited use. This makes the
>> others much more expensive.... anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 to be
>> effective.
>
>Names! :). What are the products that you researched?
We researched many Java Servlet engines... and they got ditched because
they didn't really offer Application Server features. We also looked at
ColdFusion and ran away pretty quickly after talking with some very
experienced ColdFusion developers with large deployments.
It came down to WebLogic, Dynamo, and WebObjects.
Based on our research, WebLogic didn't quite seem ready for prime time.
That left Dynamo and WebObjects.
Both were about the same price for a 2 CPu system, but Dynamo got more
expensive afterwards since they are still on a per CPU pricing structure.
We saw WebObjects as less expensive.
Dynamo is a pure Java solution. WebObjects can use many languages (add
TipTop's product for Perl, etc). We saw WebObjects as more versatile.
WebObjects had a complete development environment. Very mature. Dynamo
required developers to use their own tools for Java, Schema, etc. We saw
WebObjects' integrated development environment as a plus.
WebObjects has 3,000 customers. Dynamo only had 100 deployed solutions and
70-80% of those deployed were because of their own applications they sell
build with their own tool (Dynamo)... so that meant about 20 to 30
deployments of pure Dynamo. We saw WebObjects as having a much wider
deployment.
Dynamo's yearly sales were about $10 mil, WebObjects about $50 mil. A
large percentage of Dynamo's sales was from their own consulting fees.
Their actual tools sales was much lower. We saw WebObjects having stronger
sales.
WebObjects' customer list was much larger and included very high traffic
sites. Dynamo only had a couple of references they could point to. We saw
WebObjects having stronger customer references.
All in all, WebObjects seemed to be a more mature, stable product and a
good value.
I'd like to thank some of the people here who answered questions during our
selection process.
mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Families Against Internet Censorship: rainbow.rmi.net/~fagin/faic
