Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!rice!sun-spots-request
From: chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun
Subject: Re: Price gouging: as long as we're at it...
Keywords: Software
Message-ID: <201@brazos.Rice.edu>
Date: 18 Jul 89 12:17:39 GMT
Sender: root@rice.edu
Organization: Sun-Spots
Lines: 47
Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu
X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 8, Issue 75, message 4 of 15

I have a general rule that software above the $10,000/seat price is simply
too expensive.  Period.  I have looked at four packages that fall into
this range: Interleaf ($12,500), SES/Workbench ($30-50,000!), DataViews
($20,000), and a software metrics package whose name escapes me ($25,000).
In the case of Interleaf, we just bought Frame Maker ($2,500).  For the
others, we are actively writing equivalent in-house versions.  I was able
to write tools which mimicked the basic functionality of Dataviews in
about one week.  We are coupling a custom front-end to the CSIM simulation
package from MCC to replace SES/Workbench.  I figure I can hack a C parser
and support code together to generate software metrics in about two weeks.

The bottom line is that this stuff is so incredibly expensive, it is a
viable alternative to roll your own.  Of course, this isn't the answer for
everyone, but it is certainly a consideration.  Although Mathematica might
be a bit tougher, some packages are really quite simple.

It has also been my experience that more expensive packages have worse
user interfaces (the software metrics package set a new low).  Often, the
arrogance of these companies is astounding!  Someone at Qubix, makers of
Leonardo (RIP) one told me I should be thankful that they had even taken
the time to port their "wonderful" product from the big machines it used
to run on down to a Sun.  How dare I complain about their product?!  In
the case of Dataviews, we have had a list of bugs and questions left
unanswered for about 15 months now.  When we complained to a rep who
visited Harris, he told us that they did things the way they wanted, and
that we shouldn't question those decisions.  Thanks a lot, guys!

I have often sensed a general correlation between the "pitch point" of a
product and its price.  If a product is pitched to upper management, you'd
better float junk bonds, because the price will be sky-high.  Products
targetted for "peon level" seem to be much more reasonable.  In addition,
products which promise all sorts of "management" things, like tracking
programmer productivity, CASE support, and requirements analysis, seem to
be expensive.

I think that the market for software is becoming more educated, and PC
users are moving up to workstations, bringing with them PC pricing
ceilings.  The era of super-expensive software is going the way of the
mainframe, which is where it all started, anyway.

Chuck Musciano				ARPA  : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com
Harris Corporation 			Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck
PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912			AT&T  : (407) 727-6131
Melbourne, FL 32902			FAX   : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}

Oh yeah, laugh now!  But when the millions start pouring in, I'll be the one
at Burger King, sucking down Whoppers at my own private table! --Al Bundy