1-2 vs unlimited licenses (Unix for a 386)

[Piercarlo Grandi]

In article <16043 at vail.ICO.ISC.COM> rcd at ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes:

   > 	Otherwise, is there any *compelling* technical reason
   > 	to buy the X library binaries from ISC for $795 instead
   > 	of getting the sources with which everybody is already
   > 	quite pleased from any friend for free?

   If you don't think we've added value in what we provide--or, for that
   matter, if you don't think what we've added is worth the price--then go
   ahead!

I have been using ISC Unix ports for many many years (from the
pdp-11 days) and they have always been cleaner and neater than
most (even if I never like INed :->). SO I have no question that
ISC adds value to the the standard AT&T product (I wish I could
afford 386/ix and have the HPDD and FFS, by the way, but I am
content enough with the much cheaper ESIX thing).

   I don't think that anyone in ISC is going to quarrel that you've
   got a free choice there; I'm not even going to try a hard sell.  I would
   suggest that you spend a little time to see what you'd get from us and
   whether it's of sufficient value to you.

Ahhhh, but the argument was not on whether you add value to your
products (unquestionable), and not even on whether the higher
price is worth the higher value, it was on whether the 1-2 vs.
unlimited price differential was really "justified" as it
reflected the differential in part of your cost structure (the
royalties to AT&T).

My points were that ISC's price differential (which is way above
the difference in royalties, by the way) might conceivably have
been absorbed without too much pain by you (after all, you are
selling a deluxe product, so why be miserly?), and that in any
case your prices and your cost structure do not seem to be very
much related.

There is ground for the suspicion that your 1-2 users vs.
unlimited price differential, as well the high level of your
prices in general, bear little relationship to the AT&T royalties
or actual value added; it is maybe more the result of marketing
decisions, where you, just like AT&T, want to segment your market
(between workstations and multiuser systems, and between
developers and end users), or want to slow your sales with a high
price policy.

The pricing of X11 server vs. library is the prime example: the
library is derived from fully free sources, costs almost three
times the server, and moreover if your literature is truthful you
have hacked the server a lot, while I cannot imagine that you
have done much work to the libraries, which are *designed* to be
very portable.

It is also cause for thought that the X11 libraries cost more than
the base Unix itself, on which you do indeed pay a royalty and to
which you also have added some value.

In the end your pricing seems to bear little relationship to the
level of royalties (none, in this case), or even to your value
added (unquestionably much greater for the server than the
libraries).

It correlates only with 'what the market will bear' ("development
systems" are sold to developers, "runtimes" to the end users, so you
try to milk the latter as much as possible), and maybe with the idea
that you don't want to strain your support organization with too
many sales of the library (while you expect the developers to support
the runtimes they sell to end users along with their applications).
Given the substantial discount you offer to developers, the latter
explanation seems more reasonable, i.e. you are trying to discourage
end users from buying the libraries.

You have all the rights to price your wares as you please, but
not to ask the public to believe your claims that those prices are
"justified"...
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk at nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg at cs.aber.ac.uk