> No, free isn't the main consideration, but it certainly helps. > Not just the cost to me, but also to clients who want to > deploy my apps in-house...I can save them $1300 everytime > they want to buy an app. > > If I replicate the app completely and don't have to change it > at all for each customer and allow them to customize it at > will, and they have a basic server, hardware and software > from MS, which they must have to get any use from the server > anyway, then they only have to pay for my app to use it. No > extra $1300 investment. I can sell a replicated app for $50 > a pop, and still make money with ASP.NET. With CF, I've got > to charge $1350 to make $50 and watch sales dry up because > the cost is too high. That's the biggest concern.
If you're really selling applications for $50 apiece, then yes, you're probably right. This is certainly not the norm for web development, though. For the vast majority of web applications, the cost of development and maintenance dwarfs the cost of software licenses. > And the jump from static sites to dynamic sites, automated > use of email, etc, that I went to when I first got into CF > 4.5 was a FAR greater jump than from CF 4.5 to CFMX 7. As > far as I can tell, it's just more efficient ways to do the > same things that I do now. Well, sure! Before, you weren't writing programs. Now you are! Any improvement to programming languages/environments/etc will be incremental, compared to that! But "more efficient" is the name of the game in programming, which is why we're not all using C or assembler. Many, many times on this list, you've mentioned that you haven't time to learn various things, if I recall correctly. It appears that time is your most precious asset. I know that this is the case for me, as well. Only you can effectively measure the value of your time, and see whether doing things "more efficiently" is worth your while. > As far as trusting software, cost doesn't determine value. > When I moved from Access, which did cost me money, to MySQL a > few years ago, which is completely free, I made a good > investment in software...and it cost me less to do so. So > just because something costs more doesn't make it better. No, but in general, in the world of commercial software (or commercial anything), expensive products tend to provide more utility than cheaper products. Comparing commercial software to open-source software isn't really a useful analogy to comparing commercial software with other commercial software. > No, I don't want to learn ASP.NET 2.0 and C#, but it seems > that for the future, for the reasons I've stated above, it > will provide greater ROI...and that's what we're all after. Well then, good luck! Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:239737 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
