Re: Fair software pricing models

Al,

BPCS used to tier price.  Then we had 21 AS/400's, (not counting the
several associated with a division we sold off).  BPCS dropped tier
pricing, IBM came out with some zippy 400's, our comm infrastructure became
robust and now we are down to 8 400's.  And response time at the plants is
better than their local 400's.
However our EDI application still runs standalone on one of these remaining
400's.  The cost to move it from the 720 to the 730 is just too
astronomical.

EDI is kind of hard to user price.  It is intended to be a batch process.
While it only takes a small handful of people to configure it, many people
get the benefits of the data.  How would you price that?  By the number of
mappings?  By the number of transaction sets utilized?  By the number of
Van's?  By combining all three plus a base?  That might be doable, that
might even be fair.  In fact I think we had to pay an extra fee one time
because we added transaction sets.  But I can also see management.  "Sorry,
it's not in our budget this year to do your outbound PO's because we would
have to purchase a package of x number of mappings."  By paying a chunk
then you just use the heck out of it to get your money's worth.

Sharing user profiles, or in other words, generic user profiles?  On a user
based software?  Two things.  One, you lose the auditability and two, you
rip off the software provider.  We stopped using generic profiles when we
consolidated machines.  Even the people who use the barcode scanners
passwords will expire.

Rob Berendt

==================
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin



                    MacWheel99@aol.com
                    Sent by:                  To:     midrange-l@midrange.com
                    midrange-l-admin@mi       cc:
                    drange.com                Fax to:
                                              Subject:     Re: Fair software 
pricing models

                    11/02/2001 10:06 AM
                    Please respond to
                    midrange-l






Today we have under 50 users at 2 sites.  We had 3 sites until about a year
ago.

There was a time that I looked into having a separate midrange computer at
each site, talking to each other ... theory being performance maximization
for all the end users.  That idea was rejected when we found out that
software vendors, including IBM, could not give us meaningful discount for
multiple copies their stuff for same company.

50 users on 1 CPU connected to 3 sites pays for one copy of the software.
50 users on 3 CPU at 3 connected sites pays for 3 copies of the software
with
at best 5% discount on the 2nd & 3rd copies & no significant discount on
the
less than 50 users.

So today we are on the 1 CPU & remote sites model.

Something that has always been a hassle with midrange software pricing is
getting a good count of the number of users.  Fortunately we have managed
so
far to work out a deal where we sign some piece of paper with our name on
it
saying

As of date X we have no more than Y humans operating this software at the
same time.

We have users with multi-session work stations ... you cannot count
sessions
to get # users.  We use an addressing scheme so that WE KNOW which
addresses
are part of a cluster on the same physical device.
We have generic sign-ons intended for inquiry only ... factory floor work
stations accessible by anyone to get info on current work orders ... so the
same "user" is concurrently signed on at a bunch of sessions, but that
"user"
at each work station could be 25 people, one at a time.

It never has been quite clear to me why pricing based on # users.

There are some users whose work load beat the hardware to death with heavy
data flow, heavy number crunching software, constantly need modifications,
and have pretty sophisticated tech support questions, while there are other
user needs whose drain on the system is virtually unnoticeable.

Several years ago, before Win 9x was the norm, I had one of my early client
server users complaining about some problems with Win 3.0 ... I asked why
are
you not on Win 3.1 ... he said he had asked for it & they would not give
him
a straight answer why he could not have it, so I asked the PC manager.

The answer was that
1. To simplify maintenance management we have everyone at any one site on
the
same version of any software.
2. Whenever practical & supported by the supplier, we use site licenses
because that is cheaper than buying gazillion copies.
3. Microsoft won't sell us a corporate license that covers all sites of the
same enterprise, we have to buy one site license for each office.
4. Management has issued a budget for the PC area - no one is allowed to
buy
anything & bill it to the company, unless it is inside the budget for PC
stuff for that department.
5. We have already blown the budget for this year on stuff executives
needed
at HQ - there is none left for the folks at the remote sites.
6. That has been the model of behavior for several years.  Top executives
get
their requests in first & there is nothing in the budget for anyone else.

I called my buddy who was stuck on Win 3.0 & told him if he wanted Win 3.1
he
should buy it out of own pocket, install it on company machine, AND NOT
TELL
ANYONE WHAT HE HAD DONE, and do good backups in case he comes to work some
day & finds it back at Win 3.0.

MacWheel99@aol.com (Alister Wm Macintyre) (Al Mac)
_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.