braner@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Moshe Braner) (03/26/91)
Perhaps this forum can discuss this and bring up some advice. I have been getting the feeling that, in the commercial software world, the bug fixes and minor updates have gone extinct. It goes like this: a major new program comes out. It promises to be great. You buy it. There are some bugs or unfinished details or other undocumented features. You wait for bug fixes. 6 months later you get a letter telling you about the fine "new" product that is replacing the old one, and that due to your loyal buying in the past you have the great and unique opportunity to buy the new product for "only" $100, which is what you paid for the original, but much less than the mythical "list price". What ever happened to $5 (or even $30) software updates? Suppose I don't need the fancy new features of the new version -- shouldn't I be entitled to have the old version fixed so that it will do what it was supposed to do? Examples? Well how about Borland's Turbo C++, or Quattro Pro. ($500 list? What ever happened to the $50-Turbo-Pascal company?) So I am more and more leaning towards restricting myself to freeware and shareware. How are updates announced and distributed in the world of shareware? - Moshe
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar25.175223.12305@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> braner@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Moshe Braner) writes: >Perhaps this forum can discuss this and bring up some advice. > >Examples? Well how about Borland's Turbo C++, or Quattro Pro. >($500 list? What ever happened to the $50-Turbo-Pascal company?) InfoWorld had something about this... Apparently good, cheap, professional software is a failure. When they raise the price to something "expected" they make a lot more money, because people will still buy it. They sell a few more when it is dirt cheap, but not enough to offset the loss in dollars. Users (companies) apparently _want_ expensive software, perhaps because then they think they are entitled to more support. _Percieved_ pricing is very important also. Many companies will come out with a "$495" software package that nobody ever pays more than about $200 for, street price. I don't fully understand it (chea, good software is a great idea), but corporate America just doesn't seem to buy it. Borland makes more money this way. One of my theories is that in the home market, where price would make a difference, they just pirate it as often no matter how much it costs. The first Turbo Pascal sold like hotcakes for a few reasons, I think. First, it was infinitely better than any of the Microsoft compilers. Second, it was cheap, and corporation sales were not as important as they are now, so the home market counts for much more. Third, back then your typical PC user was probably more likely to be a programmer-type, or at least a programmer wanna- be. This is all speculation, of course (except that Borland make more money when price it "professionaly"), I'd be interested to hear comments.
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar25.175223.12305@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, braner@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Moshe Braner) wrote: }Examples? Well how about Borland's Turbo C++, or Quattro Pro. }($500 list? What ever happened to the $50-Turbo-Pascal company?) On the other hand, whatever happened to the 160K Turbo Pascal distribution? (yeah, that's right, TP 1.0 didn't quite fill a 160K disk) 15+ megs for BC++ 2.0? Eeek! -- {backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/3.1 BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask DISCLAIMER? Did | It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's I claim something?| what we know that ain't so. --Will Rogers
dhansen@nmsu.edu (Deren Hansen) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.024751.9792@qualcomm.com> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: In article <1991Mar26.024751.9792@qualcomm.com> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > InfoWorld had something about this... Apparently good, cheap, > professional software is a failure. When they raise the price to > something "expected" they make a lot more money, because people will > still buy it. [...] > _Percieved_ pricing is very important also. More people will buy it because they percieve it to be more valuable. I had a Tai Chi Chuan teacher who lived and loved the discipline. He was glad to teach anyone who wanted to learn for free. When he tried to organize free classes his pupils attended irregularly. He finally began charging for the classes, and attendance improved dramatically.
jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) (03/27/91)
From article <1991Mar26.024751.9792@qualcomm.com>, by rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold): > > InfoWorld had something about this... Apparently good, cheap, professional > software is a failure. When they raise the price to something "expected" > they make a lot more money, because people will still buy it. They sell a few > more when it is dirt cheap, but not enough to offset the loss in dollars. > Users (companies) apparently _want_ expensive software, perhaps because then > they think they are entitled to more support. _Percieved_ pricing is very > important also. Many companies will come out with a "$495" software package > that nobody ever pays more than about $200 for, street price. I remember seeing something about this last year (I think), but I don't know where I saw the article. I do remember that it was talking about the "original" list price of Autocad. I think that it started out as a ~$500 or so package and they (Autodesk) could not sell hardly any copies. They then jacked the price up to the ~$2500 range and corporate America could not get enough packages of it. The article talked about the "perceived" value received by companies at the higher price. A lot of companies just look at software packages in a price range and then at the capabilities (but of course NOT usually the limitations) of the package. i.e. Company wants to standardize on a new C compiler - Someone in the company (purchasing officer I guess) says ok well we have to narrow the field - let's look at compilers only between $500 and $1000. If the compiler is priced lower then it must be a piece of crap and if it is priced above $500 then it must be a very good quality compiler. I think this is might be (among other reasons) why Zortech raised their prices. I am sure that they get a lot more corporate purchases than when their compiler was less expensive. Just an opinion - and some partially remembered article(s). john gay.
mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) (03/28/91)
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >I don't fully understand it (chea, good software is a great idea), but >corporate America just doesn't seem to buy it. Borland makes more money >this way. One of my theories is that in the home market, where price would >make a difference, they just pirate it as often no matter how much it costs. This isn't entirely true. The largest problem with shareware in Corporate America is that it isn't marketed thru software companies like Egghead. An MIS manager, etc., wants to be able to pick up the phone and say: MIS Manager: "I want a spreadsheet program." Sales Droid: "okay, we have 123 here for $395." MIS Manager: "I'll fax you a PO." <click> --- With shareware, on the other hand, the MIS manager has to find a BBS it is on (unlikely - real MIS managers don't use PC's with modems to call local boards) and download it. He/she then has to "register" it, or whatever nonsense is contained on the license agreement. Real MIS managers deal with $60+K software licenses, they laugh when they see a $25 typing tutor. --- Even assuming a peon under the MIS manager gets the shareware package, the MIS manager is now presented with: Peon: "Boss, we need to register this $49.95 shareware word processor." (holds up diskette for boss to see.) MIS Manager: "Why? You already have it right there." --- Furthermore, sending a check in for shareware, etc., generally means having the Accounting department cut a manual check for the shareware author, instead of just having the shareware author invoice the firm and the check gets cut with the rest of the vendor's bills once a week/month. This situation causes a large amount of grief. Not too many shareware authors accept PO's and send out invoices. --- I have on many occassions recommended shareware products, like Procomm, to clients, and they have purchased them. However, it is generally easier for them just to call Egghead and order the latest version of Smartcom, and have it invoiced to their account. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / These Opinions Generally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / Represent The Opinions Of -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / My Company...