Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: 1-2 vs unlimited licenses (Unix for a 386)
Message-ID: <6055@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 5 Sep 89 21:47:04 GMT
References: <1989Aug16.020438.5662@esegue.uucp> <7186@megatest.UUCP> <9234@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 28

I think I confused my terminology in several places here... let me restate
what I said so it makes more sense:

In article <9234@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) writes:
> In article <5956@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > This doesn't follow, because [ISC] has no money at risk on the
> > unlimited license. They don't have to send the cash to AT&T until the
> > product sold, so the only capital at risk (which is what you should be
> > judging profit margins against) is the packaging and warehouse space.

> If the retailer pays $X wholesale on the box he DOES have $X at risk.
> And if the other box cost him $(X+100) he DOES have $(X+100) at risk.

You're right. I meant ISC, not the retailer. The retailer has to charge
$(x+100) * (1+markup). But ISC doesn't. So why do they?

> This had better be true (as you mention in the paragraph below), but it is
> not as much higher as the naieve analysis might indicate.

Pretty close, once you get the players right.

Of course, ISC doesn't seem to be providing the support one would expect from
their higher profits...
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"The Distribution: field on the header has been modified so as not to      'U`
 violate Information Export laws." -- eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center.