waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (02/05/91)
In article <1037@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes: [...lots of good ideas about a metered approach to software costing...] The metered approach assumes that software is or should be priced on the basis of its utility to a user or users. I believe this is also the rationale for charging more for software that runs on multi-user machines than for software running on single-user machines...the more users, the greater the cost. An alternative to having each application doing its own metering is to have each application do its metering in conjunction with a central license manager that controls what software can be run, by whom and for how long. DEC has some of this capability built into their VMS license manager. I would think that it would make any platform that had this capability an extremely attractive environment for developers since they would have enormous flexibility for providing demos and for adopting flexible pricing schemes. It is in the lack of flexible pricing schemes that NeXT third-party software (along with non-NeXT environments) suffers. Yet, many different uses will be made of the NeXT. Some will be used in a single-user environment at home. Others will be a single-user workstation in a networked environment. Others may be shared in a networked environment. And others will be application servers for other NeXTs on which a given software package will not be licensed. It only makes sense that the home user who will make relatively little use of a package should be able to pay much less than an application server where a package may be in constant use (and, of course, if that home user uses it a lot, s/he should expect to pay commensurately). And, of course, a license manager approach makes the feasibility of all NeXT software being distributed together on a single CD-ROM (or whatever) a bit stronger (though I'm sceptical that it will ever be strong enough--but DEC and MicroSoft seem to still be hopeful). But certainly software distribution via telecommunications would be quite feasible with such an approach. So I second your metered approach and would like to see it in the context of a license manager built into the NeXT OS. c.f.waltrip Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb5.104356.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes: > > So I second your metered approach and would like to see it in the > context of a license manager built into the NeXT OS. If we are at it, I have to say NO to these approaches. I plan to sell software for the NeXT eventually as well as many others, but not that way. In general I'm opposed to copy-protection. If the program is worth it's money people will pay any reasonable price. If you belong to the category of people that ask 40000$ for some libraries that were developed in just a couple of months (as it happens in this market) then I'd say copyright laws should be abolished altogether. Such high prices are an abuse of law that wants to ensure healthy profits but not robbery. An applaus to companies like Lighthouse and Pencom that realize that a reasonable price will do it perfectly. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet