> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:41:05 -0800, Fargusson.Alan wrote: > >I don't really want to defend IBM pricing, but gross margin is > >not the same as profit. It is much more expensive per customer > >to maintain software that has a small installed base than software > >that has a large installed base. The number of bugs found is > >only slightly less for a small installed base. > > That being the case, wouldn't it make sense for IBM to try to > maximize the size of the installed base? And wouldn't better > pricing help in that regard? > > I'd also guess that whether I'm running on a small box or a > very large box, the cost for maintaining the software I run will > be the same. So why do they charge me more if I buy a bigger box?
A bloke I used to know used to upholster cars. He admitted to charging more for owners of, say, Mercedes cars than those owning Minis. Why?, we asked. "Because owners of Mercedes are more likely to sue." I'm sure IBM won't put it quite so bluntly, and threats (real or imagined) of litigation aside, if you're running a major world-wide airline booking operation you're likely to be more demanding than someone else running an Australia-wide motel chain, and a system outage will cause much more damage. Back in '88 I was talking to some folk at Westpac. They had recently had a two or three day outage on their ATM network caused by an IMS failure. Imagine if that happened to One World. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. ============================== If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
