Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: software upgrades (was Re: Paying for Shareware)
Message-ID: <1991Mar26.024751.9792@qualcomm.com>
Date: 26 Mar 91 02:47:51 GMT
References: <48650@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1991Mar25.175223.12305@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 29

In article <1991Mar25.175223.12305@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> braner@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Moshe Braner) writes:
>Perhaps this forum can discuss this and bring up some advice.
>
>Examples?  Well how about Borland's Turbo C++, or Quattro Pro.
>($500 list?  What ever happened to the $50-Turbo-Pascal company?)

InfoWorld had something about this...  Apparently good, cheap, professional
software is a failure.  When they raise the price to something "expected"
they make a lot more money, because people will still buy it.  They sell a few
more when it is dirt cheap, but not enough to offset the loss in dollars.
Users (companies) apparently _want_ expensive software, perhaps because then
they think they are entitled to more support.  _Percieved_ pricing is very
important also.  Many companies will come out with a "$495" software package
that nobody ever pays more than about $200 for, street price.

I don't fully understand it (chea, good software is a great idea), but
corporate America just doesn't seem to buy it.  Borland makes more money
this way.  One of my theories is that in the home market, where price would
make a difference, they just pirate it as often no matter how much it costs.

The first Turbo Pascal sold like hotcakes for a few reasons, I think.  First,
it was infinitely better than any of the Microsoft compilers.  Second, it was
cheap, and corporation sales were not as important as they are now, so the
home market counts for much more.  Third, back then your typical PC user was
probably more likely to be a programmer-type, or at least a programmer wanna-
be.

This is all speculation, of course (except that Borland make more money when
price it "professionaly"), I'd be interested to hear comments.