Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlv2!faatcrl!jprad
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: An issue for the entire Amiga Community.
Message-ID: <1403@faatcrl.UUCP>
Date: 25 May 90 21:35:49 GMT
References: <1990May17.001308.29541@csmil.umich.edu> <EACHUS.90May17105537@aries.linus.mitre.org> <MWM.90May21133744@raven.pa.dec.com> <136089@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <11747@cbmvax.commodore.com> <136118@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1401@faatcrl.UUCP> <5366@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ
Lines: 45

barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes:

>	If anything sounds like "paranoia", it is your reply, Jack!  Oh,
>no... the hateful evil commercial software companies are out to drain my
>wallet.  And everybody knows that ALL commercial software companies are
>criminals.

No, I'm quite rational for the most part, as is most anybody. But, I do find
it insulting that something like Lotus sells as well as it does and still
manages to increase in price with every release.

Granted, unlike a mechanical device which wears out over a period of time,
software remains as functional as the first day you licensed it.

But, and maybe this is my major gripe, is when I look at something as
technically advanced as a VCR, which has increased in performance, features
and quality, while steadily dropping in price, you have something like Lotus,
which has also increased in features (performance and quality being subjective
here), but it has _increased_ in price.

It's as if prior technology (Visicalc) has nothing to do with keeping the
price at least level, if not downward.

>	IMHO, Chuck McManis has a very good idea about what it takes,
>both academically and financially, to put out a commercial software
>product.  His postings in past years (I REALLY wish he'd repost them...
>I think it's time!) about how much it costs to develop and market a
>simple software package were VERY eye-opening to me.  And plenty of
>people followed up his postings, also saying how eye-opening they were.
>	His best posting was in response to someone who said "why the
>hell do games cost $40-50??  I think they're worth only $10."  Chuck
>explained, in a very rational and organized manner, exactly where these
>costs can come from.  How about a repost??

I'd like to see it too, I'm always open to rational thought.

But, at the visceral level, I *do* feel that most software is extremely
overpriced.  The piracy issue tends to justify that stance too, if the
sofware was "reasonable" there would be much less piracy and more profit
for the publisher as well.

It's not that I'm anit-capitalist, I do feel everyone is allowed to make
a profit, but it has its limits just the same. 

  -jack-