🚀 go-pugleaf

david.dmytryshyn@f428.n250.z1.fidonet.org (david dmytryshyn) writes:

> > users have constantly paid a premium for being at the forefront of
                          -----------------------------------------
> > technology. As the costs for development start to become assimilated by
> > increased sales, prices drop. 


>By that much?  Almost 50%?  No, I didn't expect this.  For some reason, I'd
                       --- <-- yes, quite a jump.

>...But, if you can honestly tell me that after 
>purchasing a piece of software for $1300 you envisioned it's price dropping 
>some $550 I would laugh right in your face.  

This happens frequently in special purpose, niche-market software
packages.  Applications to solve some esoteric need prove to be
generally useful to a broader market than originally envisioned
resulting in repositioning the product in the marketplace. (how's THAT
for marketing mumbo-jumbo?  But really, David, that's how marketing
types think!) Please don't ask me to wade through years of MacWEEKs,
but many special purpose packages do this. I've seen AI packages drop
even more dramatically. This happens mostly when a company envisions
their product as "special purpose" but are (pleasantly) surprised to
find the product brought into the mainstream.

I have an interest in music scoring software, but strictly as a hobby,
not professionally. I wouldn't justify Finale's original price for 
myself. I honestly had a gut feeling that Finale's price would drop 
twice: 1st, after the initial users who absolutely NEEDED Finale's
functionality were satisfied, dealers would start discounting from the
[high] list price. And 2nd, I felt it was possible that Coda would 
discover that the market was broader for their product than was originally
anticipated by their marketing dept and that a reassessment of the 
mark-up vs. volume ratio would result in a price cut. So laugh. When
companies enter a market that is new for them, they often go through
some adjustment period finding their nitch. This isn't only true for
high tech companies.  


>And just because everyone else acts this way, it's somehow better?  There's no 
>logic there.  

It's not better; it's just the way things are. <shrug>

>If we all felt that way, the consumer would be taken advantage 
>of left and right.  

We are! We are all guinea pigs for all the marketing departments of the 
world's fantasies. They spend billions trying to figure out how to
control and manipulate us.  

>Just because these are high-tech computer stuff doesn't 
>mean we can't have consumer activism.  

Correct. But you weren't defrauded or ripped off, so what's to be
active about? I don't get it. Do you want Coda to raise the price back
up to the original price or do you want them to give you a rebate, then
charge full price for the upgrade?

>And, just because the software was over 
>$1000 doesn't make it any different than a $300 piece of software. 

Of course not. Why are you bringing this into the thread?


>if I take your line and become a passivist and just roll over I'm sure the 
>world would be just such a great place. <hint of sarcasm>  Passivism has it's 
>place, but me thinks not here.   The free upgrade is an attempt at 
>appeasement, 

I don't think appeasement, I think that they were just saying "Thank you for
contributing to our success. This one's on us." Other companies may do 
better or worse than this (Apple definitely does worse).


> but I'm not rolling over.

No one's asking you to. You already did so voluntarily when you originally
bought the package. You want them to unroll you now?


>Wenger (CODA) is a big music 
>publishing company, and I'm going to challenge them.  Some companies will 
>give the first upgrade free anyways.   (not just bug fixes)

Some companies WILL give the 1st upgrade free. Company's choice. Again,
what are you going to challenge them for? On what grounds. You can
kick yourself for not waiting, but you can't kick Coda for offering
a product on the open market that you voluntarily chose to purchase.


>... the letter 
>will be considerably more civil.  

Always more effective!

>Don't quite know why I used nasty, perhaps 
>that was more a reflection of my mood.

You feel you were wronged and felt a burst of emotion.  I don't agree
that you were wronged, but I grant the validity of the adrenaline (SP?)
rush accompanied by the desire to change the current situation.

Nonetheless, don't expect too much from Coda. I can sympathize with
your desire to save money, but you weren't wronged.

Pure conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if Finale was
developed for Wenger's own in-house use only and that when the users
and programmers began to add features and polish the project they felt
proud of their accomplishment. I can imagine several meetings where
Coda decides to market the product and determine market size, marketing
costs, desired returns, etc. They throw the product out there, and
start getting feedback from end-users, dealers, their own marketing
bozos. They respond to shifts in their perception of what the market
would be like. If they had been dead on with their original guesses,
things would have progressed differently, no doubt.

The fact that they changed marketing strategies in mid-stream is not in
and of itself a good or a bad thing. The fact that we, the consumers,
are made aware of their change in marketing strategy is not the coolest
way to go on their part. But if they figured the increased profit will
offset the temporary marketplace confusion, they make their choice and
run with it. Coda (Wenger) is a company. They want to maximize their
profits. They will do what they can towards that end.

Anyway, sorry for the length and I hope you feel better...

 
--
Scott Truesdell