Path: utzoo!attcan!ncrcan!hcr!mike From: mike@hcr.UUCP (Mike Tilson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: C++ pricing for AT&T Release 2.0, and 386 binaries Message-ID: <1379@hcr.UUCP> Date: 11 Jul 89 21:30:38 GMT Organization: HCR Corporation, Toronto Lines: 197 This is quite long, and concerns pricing and licensing more than it concerns technology. Press "n" now if not interested. Various readers of this group have commented unfavorably about AT&T's new pricing policy. As our firm has recently entered the ranks of C++ compiler vendors based on selling an enhanced version of AT&T's Release 2.0 product, I have been watching this discussion with interest. The complaints can be summarized as follows: 1. The price is too high. 2. AT&T could have "owned" the C++ market with a lower price. 3. There is no good way to license a network. 4. The price change was a big surprise. 5. "The price is too high, let's all get behind GNU G++, except it's not practical for me to do this...." I'd like to comment on each, and end with a few comments about our own C++ activity. 1. The price is too high. (Note: I can't speak for AT&T, these are simply my opinions.) The first release of C++ was as an unsupported research product. In other words, "here it is, make of it what you will, and we'd like a little money for it." Release 2.0 on the other hand is being treated like a product. There has been a development effort, followed by an extensive beta testing effort with multiple companies over an extended period. For a compiler product, $20,000 for source is not actually that large a price. For comparison, UNIX commercial source is now close to $100K (e.g. for 386 UNIX source.) Yes, both used to be cheaper, but in comparison to other companies how do these prices look? Most major commercial compilers don't even sell source! Anyone seen a list price for Microsoft C source code lately? What do VMS compilers cost for source, or VMS itself, for that matter? To its credit, AT&T offers considerable educational discounts for source. This is not often done by other vendors. One thing people haven't considered in their calculations is that AT&T also offers binary sublicensing rights. A large site can get the source code it needs for porting or modification, and then distribute MUCH LOWER COST binary copies to the machines that need them. If you have 500 workstations using C++, just how many of them are involved in modifying the compiler? One hopes that the main reason for using C++ is to *USE* C++, and not to hack the compiler. Just a few source copies should suffice for most organizations that need source -- most users on most workstations can get by just fine with a binary copy, and this will reduce the price a lot. (See AT&T licensing for details of binary licensing.) Finally, if C++ if going to be successful, then commercial companies will be selling "shrink-wrap" packaged products -- pre-built, tested, installable, with documentation, with added value, and with support. At the moment, AT&T is licensing technology. Product vendors will take the technology and build end-user products for various platforms. This is really what most users want. Only a few want to hack the compiler source (and only a few are qualified to do so with any probability of success.) Most users want to take something off the shelf and have it work. The AT&T licensing policies seem to be aimed at compiler vendors and OEMs rather than end users. I believe this will benefit the end users, because it will spawn a highly competitive market. Users still have more choices than they do with most compiler products, because they too can license the base technology if they wish. It just isn't free. After much urging from the industry, AT&T has separated its UNIX Software Operation from its computer business. USO must now make a profit without being cross-subsidized by the AT&T computer business. (The industry wanted this because of the suspicion that AT&T might be tempted to warp software product development in a direction calculated to help sell more 3B processors.) Almost all of the cost of software is "fixed" (e.g. R&D) rather than "variable" (e.g. cost of tape, printing manual, shipping.) People tend to compare the variable cost to the price and complain, conveniently ignoring the other costs. 2. AT&T could have "owned" the C++ market with a lower price. Several have commented that AT&T could have swept the market by pricing C++ source so low that everyone would buy it in preference to any other solution. I hope a moment's reflection will convince people that giving AT&T a hammerlock on the C++ market might not be the best thing. Also, such a pricing strategy could be considered predatory and therefore illegal. The character of the market is about to change. Early adopters of the C++ technology had to have source -- there was no other choice. But if C++ is truly an important technology, then a variety of vendors will support the product on various platforms with various degrees of added value, extra tools, etc. This will not happen if AT&T totally owns all aspects of the market. 3. There is no good way to license a network. This is true. You have to buy a license for each machine you wish to use the software on. I'm not sure this is such a big problem. Nobody seems surprised that you have to pay to buy each machine on the network, but somehow buying the software seems to be a big problem. I think often the complaint boils down to "I wish it were cheaper/free." It *is* an administrative pain to keep track of licenses, and I agree that site/network licensing is desirable. Speaking from a software vendor point of view, it isn't that easy to do -- any policy has to work right for all networks and all sites. We'd like to see AT&T do something here, but better no policy than a wrong policy. 4. The price change was a big surprise. Yes, this seems poorly managed. A lot of people expected to buy Release 2.0 for a certain amount, and now don't have the funds in the budget. The Release 2.0 features and bug fixes are substantial, and there is a pent-up demand for things like multiple inheritance. AT&T never promised anything about Release 2.0 pricing, but they could have communicated better to their customers. I think some of the complaints are a result of the fact the people may now need to wait for binary vendors such as HCR and others to ship binaries on the appropriate platforms. This will not happen immediately on all platforms of interest. However, since licensees of C++ 1.2 can upgrade every previously licensed CPU for $10,000, I'm not sure this is such a big problem. If it isn't worth the price of another workstation, perhaps there is no economic justification for using the new language features. (Will the new features save your organization a couple of staff months over the next few years, e.g. a day or two per year per developer? If not, why bother and why is it an issue? If so, then the expenditure is justified.) 5. "The price is too high, let's all get behind FSF GNU G++, except it's not practical for me to do this...." The ultimate low cost option is to get your software "for free." So why does anyone ever buy a C++ compiler, when they could have G++? (RMS says "good question!" at this point. :-)) The answer is that nothing is really free. I am aware of a case where a local firm paid thousands of dollars to a consultant in order to get FSF compilers up and running on a common workstation. Since this firm has no compiler gurus, if they ever want an upgrade or if their base OS changes, etc., they'll probably pay the price again in the future. When you buy a commercial package, you have an expectation that you can "plug it in and go." This is worth something. In the long run it may be cheaper to buy a product than to get "free" software. If you have the skills and the time, "free" software may be for you, but make sure you've analyzed all the costs. Do people really want the cost of software to go down to zero, or near zero? If it goes exactly to zero, then the expected commercial R&D investment in creation of new software products will go to zero as well. If it goes to "near zero", then a few companies that can achieve massive market dominance can make money on volume, but nobody else can. (I'll note in passing that FSF seems to have released only packages that are clones -- albeit good quality value-added clones -- of existing already successful products, and with the exception of emacs everything being cloned is the result of development and marketing efforts carried on by profit-making, software-selling organizations. Perhaps this should tell us something. By the way, while I disagree fundamentally with the FSF world view, I do admire them for putting their money where their mouth is.) As a software vendor, we are investing in product development in the hope of receiving a return on that investment. We think our investment will produce useful software; the market will tell us if we are right. We'll only get a return on our investment if we can charge a fee based on the use (e.g. number of copies, number of users, etc.) of our software. It is not practical or reasonable for us to follow the FSF model that all revenue is consulting revenue (or donations, although if you wish you may send us some! :-)) I think users benefit from an active, competitive, and profitable software industry. What are we doing with AT&T Release 2.0 and C++ products? Our product has already been mentioned on the net. I don't want to make any sales pitch here, so I'll confine myself to some factual statements and some corrections to a posting made by . This information is not intended as a product announcement, but rather as an illustration by example of what you might expect various compiler vendors to do on various platforms. HCR/C++ has been announced as being available for UNIX System V.3.2 on 386 architectures. It is based on AT&T Release 2.0. We are shipping the complete AT&T product ported to the 386, including the task library. Every copy is shipped with another HCR product called dbXtra. This is a window oriented debugger upward compatible with dbx. The version shipped with C++ cooperates with the compiler to debug using C++ names. Availability on other platform other than 386 UNIX V.3.2 has not yet been announced. The price on this platform is US$995 for the full package (C++ compiler, libraries, documentation, and debugger). The earlier posting implied dbXtra was "extra" -- it is included. Until Aug 31 the introductory price is US$499. Shipments commence this month. Talk to a sales person for more details, volume pricing, etc., etc. While it would be nice to have no competition :-) I'm sure other vendors will be also be active with the Release 2.0 technology. In addition, compilers not derived from AT&T technology will continue to be announced. I think C++ is here to stay, the main language features are stabilizing, and users are about to enjoy a competitive market. /Michael Tilson {...!hcr!mike} /HCR Corporation /130 Bloor Street West, 10th Floor /Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1N5 /CANADA /Phone: 416-922-1937 /Fax: 416-922-8397 (Note: please direct HCR/C++ enquiries to our sales staff and not to me. Thanks.)