On 01/09/2003 18:11, "Entourage:mac Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MS come out with a software that is faster and cheaper as soon as I > purchase? Kind of pushing it aren't ya? Okay, and who put the gun at your head to buy Office v.X? No one. If you were that upset at the price you paid to get E'rage, then why upgrade? 2001 still works in Classic. And Paying 500 bucks for any email client is silly. Unless of course you do use Word/Excel/PowerPoint. Then it's $125/product. Not bad. > > Ya milked the early adopters by not allowing them to get the 1 product they > may have wanted out of the suite for a decent price. Sales are slipping > horribly because of it, especially due to other offerings that have been > released. It's called supply and demand. Welcome to reality. You have demand, they have supply, you were willing to pay for Office to get E'rage, they set a price that *obviously* wasn't too high, since you paid it. If it had been too high, you wouldn't have paid it. You needed product, you got product. You paid money, they gave you a box. Sounds like commerce to me. > > PR is PR, but sugar coated BS is just that- sugar coated BS. The least you > can do is make the coating a little thicker (uh, like improving the product > in any real way) so people can hopefully swallow it before the candy coating > has melted. Oh please...if they *gave* it away, you'd be mad because you didn't get a rebate. Welcome to the reality of the computer business. You will *always* get a better deal if you wait just a little longer. Of course, at *some* point, you are going to actually have to DO something as opposed to waiting for Godot. Then you pays your money and you takes your chances. > Thing is, Outlook Express was one of the most kickass pieces of freeware > ever bestowed upon the Mac community, and those, like myself who came to > rely on it found that there was nothing remotely comparable (in the same > price bracket) for OS X. > > After dabbling disconsolately with the alternatives for a few months, I > caved in and bought Office because that was the only way to get Entourage. > It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to come up with the idea that the > policy of only selling E'rage as part of Office (despite the loud and > constant clamouring for a standalone version) offered a way to maximise > revenue streams. Sure, I could have carried on using OE via classic, but by > the same token, I could still be wearing flares and cheesecloth shirts. > Choosing not to is a personal decision, and not one I begrudge. Welcome to the world of commerce. Making money is why you go into *business*. You want to save the world, start a charity, wear sackcloth, live under a tree. As well, comparing OE to E'rage is like comparing a Fiero to a NSX....they're both cars, and that's about where it ends. > Now that 'Mail' is somewhat improved over its original version, and more > integrated with Address Book and iCal, the E'rage advantage is becoming less > clear, and may no longer be enough to tempt X newcomers to shell out for the > whole Office deal, so it makes perfect commercial sense to unbundle it and > flog it cheap. I don't really begrudge that, either, but permit me a small > whimper of pain on behalf of all those thousands of OS X early adopters who > now have the full version of Office installed, but never need Excel and > PowerPoint, or do any word-processing more complex than writing a begging > letter to the bank. > By the same token, I could write a set of background Applescript apps that provide E'rage with the same level of *integration* with Address book that Mail has. Those products give you a good basic product, but the *only* advantage Mail has over E'rage is Kerberos auth. Other than that, E'rage is a better app in the box than those three running. If you paid $500 to get an email client, gee, that's a shame, but that's YOUR damage. You made that decision. You didn't HAVE to. You could STILL be using OE in Classic. You got caught by the cheaper process. So have I. > I'm not a habitual MS knocker, although your response suggests that's all > you think my comments amounted to. If I was really burned up about this, I'd > have been referring to 'MS ************s', not *******s. Oh, that makes it ALL better then..."I called them a shorter profanity to make up for my bad luck." You want the good seats, you pay for them. You want cheap, you sit far away, and drink crappy beer. john -- The GPL is not something we really considered to be a license so much as a political manifesto, and speaking purely for myself, I prefer to keep my license agreements and my politics separate. I feel that code which isn't being used in a situation where it COULD be used is code which isn't achieving its full potential and the GPL scares a lot of potential users away, which is simply counter-productive in my opinion. I don't care whether or not the users give their changes back to me, that's just an added bonus if it happens and nothing I'd want to try and enforce at the point of a gun. --Jordan Hubbard -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
