On Tue, February 2, 2010 09:58, Tim Cook wrote: > It's called spreading the costs around. Would you really rather pay 10x > the price on everything else besides the drives?
This seems to miss the point. I presented an argument for why I think the qualified drives are a huge profit-center, not just making a reasonable profit on the work of qualification. In general, I'd much rather pay reasonable costs for each piece, rather than weird costs artificially shoved around to make things come out some strange way somebody favors. > This is essentially Sun's > way > of tiered pricing. Rather than charge you a software fee based on how > much > storage you have, they increase the price of the drives. Seems fairly > reasonable to me... it gives a low point of entry for people that don't > need > that much storage without using ridiculous capacity based licensing on > software. It works great for me personally -- I'm using the software with other people's hardware, for free. But why should people who need a lot of storage pay proportionally more? I don't get that, that's grossly wrong. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
