🚀 go-pugleaf

I think your argument is a little incomplete.

Suppose I make you the following deal:  if you give me $10,000 today, I
will give you at least $5,000 every year for the next 5 years.  I
think you will accept my deal, right?

Ok, now let's look at Star and suppose I can prove to you that it
makes me 10% more effective (this is hard to prove) or that it saves
me 10% of my time.  My time actually costs the company $60,000 a year.
And I am but a lowly engineer making under $30K/year.  So if the
if I do my work 10% faster, the company in some way, "saves"
$6,000/yr.  (the savings could be in hiring less engineers or by
getting more work done per unit time or by getting the job done more
effectively). 

In fact, the Booz-Allen study on the potential of office
automation (a very thorough case study of over 40 companies) concluded
the AVERAGE ROI on OA equipment was 86% annually and could be over
200% in some companies.  

I think it is foolish to measure a system on cost.  You measure on
price/performance or ROI.  If Xerox can prove a high ROI, they will win.

I must work for one of those "VERY few" companies who spend over
$10,000 on computer equipment for engineers.  It costs us $60,000 to
provide a computer port into our Data General Eclipse.