"Geoff Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The software distribution mechanism is great but then that implies you > have software to distribute. There isn't any software -- you have to > build it. So you're adding insult to injury by asking folks to pay for > a license to distribute software you would like them to develop in your > products, products for which they have paid money already. Don't quite get this. Say you're developing a VB application. You have to build it yourself, then you have to deploy it to 1,000 desktops. There's a whole industry out there that builds remote deployment software for this sort of situation. Most people wouldn't find it insulting that they charge you money (usually lots) to help deploy software that you had to build yourself - the software is still saving hundreds or thousands of hours spent deploying the software manually by operations staff. At one of the call centre projects I worked on there was a team of five FTEs to manage software deployment in a four hundred seat call centre. Now, technology has improved since then, but say it's one person on that team today, with a 50k package (inc super, training etc). That's $50,000/400 seats = $125 per seat per year. All I'm saying here is that automatic software deployment is worth something (not necessarily $28/desktop/year, just "something") > I understand the commercial reality of paying for software. Problem is > you're asking people to pay for a delivery mechanism that still has > minimal uptake. I don't think the point is to deploy StockCentral etc on the intranet, it's benefit is as a delivery mechanism for your own apps. Whether or not the rest of the world is using Central to deploy apps on their intranet, if you're using it to deploy your apps then you'd be realising the above benefits. > I can't help thinking a server license of some kind is > more the order of the day. Well isn't this a server license of some kind - most desktop environment servers (eg Windows) are licensed for a certain number of connected client desktops. The benefits of deployment scale with the number of desktops, and the other benefits of Central are largley client based, so it's reasonable to include the number of clients in the equation. > At the very least MM needs to perhaps put up some hypothetical case > studies so people can better understand the proposed licensing regime. Agree, Mike may be able to help there. Cheers, Robin --- You are currently subscribed to fugli as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
