🚀 go-pugleaf

Having followed this thread for a while, I must comment on some things.
I'm going to extrapolate a bit to all computer systems instead of just next.

    I find that an application for Unix costs a great amount more than
a functionally similiar application on the PC or the Mac (single
tasking machines).  I have found accounting software for unix that
costs $1500 that isn't much better than $600 software on the PC/Mac.  I
have found, though that NeXT software is much more reasonably priced
(compared to Unix software) in general.

  The big problem I see with large applications in general is that it
is often absurdly priced.  Companies can (and do) afford $500 per
package for 4-5 packages.  This just isn't possible for (1) smaller
companies and (2) individuals.  It's obvious, in many case, that it`s
an artificial pricing structure that does not work and encourages
(perhaps too strong a word) piracy.

   This often happens in Unix.  It's a more complicated to program in
than DOS (or at least you can't write the junk code that is found in
many DOS programs - you have to write programs correctly), but often
programs are used the same way - 1 user plugging away at it.  This does
not justify the price differences that one finds in general purpose
apps (like word processors and simple databases) that one finds.


   When I was a student, WordPerfect cost $500 or so.  I saw LOTS of
students copying from school machines for their own use.  (Not me, I
had an Apple ][  :) Then they came up with a student version (minerly
crippled) for less than $100.  All of a sudden (generally poor)
students would buy it.

   Quicken, at $60, is RARELY pirated.  You can run a small business on
it and it compares favorably with packages costing $500 or more.  Its
sold gazillions of copies.

   A while ago, MicroSoft C (4.2 or so) cost around $500-$600.  There
was a great deal of piracy of that.  Turbo C came out for $100 and,
while it wasn't as efficient as MS C in optimization and debugging
tools at first, was was VERY useful.  For $100, you got the software,
the manuals and the support.  They sold A LOT OF COPIES of that.  All
of a sudden, Microsoft was able to come out with a cheaper version of C
(Quick C).

   Why is it that Borland (a reasonably large software house at this
point) blew away Lotus 1-2-3, dBase III, MicroSoft C/Assembler for
products that cost significantly less and did more, better?  Software
prices are inflated.

   Prices must reflect the VALUE of the software to the consumer.  When
software costs more than a month's rent in an apartment (or 75% here in
New York), people hesitate, especially when they have to do that 3
times or more.  When it costs 1/5 that, depending on the software, I'd
say that they "cost" of pirating (no support, no manuals, no upgrades,
etc) will drop significantly.  The only time prices seem to come down
is when there is competition from a MAJOR player.  Laws and prosecution
won't stop much.  The courts and jails are stuffed with people who are
more dangerous to our society that a guy dup'ing a disk for his home
computers.

   Of course, some packages cost more to produce and do more.  I find
softPC/Next for $350 quite reasonable - it lets me run PC tools on my
next.  I find Lotus for $500+ ridiculous - especially when the upgrades
are SO infrequent.

   There will always be people who don't want to spend ANYTHING on
software because they can't see why a spreadsheet costs more than $50.
The best solution for that is to take it away and see if they
understand, but they can't be stopped except with copy protection and an
attitude change.  There are also people who WILL pay a reasonable price
for a tool, but steal it because it's not what they think is
reasonable.

   Perhaps that NeXT idea will change all that - sell/trade/barter
objects and let people build their own apps.

  Sorry to be so long in form, it's an important issue.

chuck
--------------------------------------------------------------------
chuck yerkes, fusion systems group    (chuck@fsg.com)

"The opinions here are mine, not my 
 company's and not necessarily right."