🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1991Mar26.024751.9792@qualcomm.com>, by rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold):
> 
> 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 remember seeing something about this last year (I think), but I don't
know where I saw the article.  I do remember that it was talking about
the "original" list price of Autocad.  I think that it started out as
a ~$500 or so package and they (Autodesk) could not sell hardly any
copies.  They then jacked the price up to the ~$2500 range and corporate
America could not get enough packages of it.  The article talked about
the "perceived" value received by companies at the higher price.

A lot of companies just look at software packages in a price range and
then at the capabilities (but of course NOT usually the limitations) of
the package.
i.e. Company wants to standardize on a new C compiler - 
Someone in the company (purchasing officer I guess) says ok well we have
to narrow the field - let's look at compilers only between $500 and $1000.
If the compiler is priced lower then it must be a piece of crap and if
it is priced above $500 then it must be a very good quality compiler.

I think this is might be (among other reasons) why Zortech raised their
prices.  I am sure that they get a lot more corporate purchases than
when their compiler was less expensive.

Just an opinion - and some partially remembered article(s).

john gay.