|
So big iron.
Presumably the companies had a full service contract with the iron company and quite likely only ran software from those companies as well.
Did the employees of your company run those updates or did the employees of the iron company run the updates?
|
|
|
|
|
This was in the days before magnetic drums and disks, and main memory was 16K of magnetic cores. Every morning we would reload the OS from the master magnetic tape, before starting the commercial programs. When the manufacturer created an update they would just send us a new tape. All input data came from punched paper tape or cards, and was processed in batches. One of the joys of the night shift was getting all the invoices printed, decollated and cut, ready for delivery. We could then repair to the canteen and play cards until the end of the shift.
|
|
|
|
|
Around 1980 I first heard the saying, "A truckload of magnetic tape tape has a tremendous bandwidth". Later, I learned that the saying is several years older.
I'd like to do a real, up to date calculation based on, say 128 TB SD cards. What is the weight of an SD card? (I don't have a scale handling those ranges!) How much can you load into a truck? 20 tons? 40 tons?
I guess that a container ship of SD cards would beat the combined capacity of all the Trans-Atlantic optic fibers.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Except now every time I turn on my TV I have to install an update... literally. And to top if off, my TV shows me ads. All for updates I never wanted for crap I don't use... just to watch TV.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Vivi Chellappa wrote: What justifies differential pricing based on number of users?
I don't agree with differential pricing when it comes to greed. But, I think scaling pricing is great if it's done ethically. It gives smaller companies a chance to play ball. But, only if done ethically and not out of greed. Dunno about this situation in particular.
I will say though that greed based pricing differences have been around for a while now. Hotels, Airlines, etc. will charge you more if you buy a ticket from an affluent area, for instance. So, the greed part is nothing new it's just being expressed through software now that the tech giants have fully embraced the dark side.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
has nothing to do with greed. $$ is $$.
You don't have to buy it.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah ok... charging an exorbitant amount for something has nothing to do with greed. Not sure you know what that word means. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: Smarty pants
Guilty.
charlieg wrote: My point is that it's a free market. Don't like the price? Don't buy it
Right, but that has nothing to do with greed, which was what I was talking about. If anything is more do with supply and demand. Which are indirectly based on fear and greed but that aren't directly the same thing.
charlieg wrote: When companies do this, they are circling the wagons because their cheese is about to be moved.
I'm not sure what that metaphor means. I assume it means they're getting desparate and if so, would lend credence to my original point you seem to be trying to discredit. 
Side note, it's in poor taste for unsolicited book recommendations. It's presumptuous and assumes I know little of the subject. I can promise you, nothing could be further from the truth.
charlieg wrote: But if the OP is upset, they need to take it up with senior leadership.
This has nothing to do with greed being the driving factor behind a lot of new pricing models.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Vivi Chellappa wrote: What makes software different from common household goods such as TV, automobiles, etc?
I'd say you're not giving enough weight to the distinction between tangibles and intangibles. Tangibles have limited lifetimes; automobiles, TVs, microwave ovens, smart phones, groceries, etc., eventually need replacing, often because some folks like to have the latest 'thing'. There's an on-going market for new widgets.
The sales model for tangibles is not sustainable for software over time. Once most people who need a particular software app have it, it gets harder to sell them upgrades especially as the product matures, and the market for new purchases is never as big as the initial sales. I don't know that this justifies the model nearly every software company has adopted over the last decade, but I'm pretty sure that's the reason behind it.
What justifies differential pricing based on number of users? If you're buying wine for an evening, are you buying one bottle for you and your partner, or for a party of 50? You gots mo' people, you needs mo' wine. That's where the gap between tangibles and intangibles is negligible.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
The biggest difference between Products (TV, Automobile, Washing Machine) and software is that software is not sold. Software is licensed. You do not own it. You own the right to use it under the terms of the licensing agreement. If you do not agree with the terms of the license you are free to negotiate with the software owner or go find a different software solution with licensing terms that are more to your liking (like open source alternatives).
The problem that software owners/vendors have is that software is easy to install and run on most computing equipment. Need an extra word processor for a new employee, just install the one you have on that employee's new PC. That is why most software installs try to phone home to the mother company to validate that the software license for it is not already bound to a different PC. Need more flexibility in the international nature of your multi country corporation. Then get an Enterprise License and you are free to use software as much as you want. Of course, you are going to pay an order of magnitude more for the license than a single user license. Have a small office with a tiny server and you don't want to pay for "big iron" prices. Then there are small server (per core) pricing.
You can compare hard good products with software products only when they can "pop into existence" by simply installing a copy of them in another location. Need a 2nd TV, just install a copy of your TV in the new room, or friend's house.
But I do agree that Oracle is the example of hardnosed licensing. It's the reason why almost everyone that is doing any serious development with Java software products is using OpenJDK development. If you are an enterprise and using Oracle as a database then you are stuck. You are already paying an arm and leg for licensing and support.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote: The biggest difference between Products (TV, Automobile, Washing Machine) and software is that software is not sold. Software is licensed.
But not that simple.
Car leasing.
Backhoe rental.
Not to mention of course 'software' these days is also confused with 'service'. You can have Microsoft Office as a product or a service.
If I go to a bar, buy a beer and watch a sports match am I getting a service or a product?
|
|
|
|
|
All of the software on my current PC is bought as a product, or downloaded free of charge/service. I do pay a monthly fee for my internet connection, but that comes with no software at my PC.
One common way to pay for internet (and broadcasting) services is to let the ads persuade you to buy more of the stuff advertised - part of what you pay (sometimes, a significant part) goes to run the service. I don't want to be persuaded to buy lots of things I don't need. The stuff I need, I buy, ads or not.
One problem: When I buy a product, a significant part of the price goes for producing internet services and TV shows that I could care less about. I don't want my money to be spend on that garbage! (some of it, at least) But the is no way to opt out, as long as I need the stuff I buy and cannot / will not stop buying it just to keep my money out of those production budgets. I really liked it when we had to pay a license to watch TV, one with no commercials. I could opt out, and I did: I never owned a TV set.
I am forced to pay for a lot of services and series that I don't want; it happens nearly every time I pull my card or open my billfold. Therefore, I have a clean conscience when I use an ad blocker, so that I do not spend even more money on services and series that I do not want. In the old days of paper newspapers, they often had advertising inserts, printed separately so you could take them out and throw in the wastepaper basket without looking at them. That's what I did. The paper equivalent to today's ad blocker. Criticizing me for using an ad blocker is like criticizing me for throwing the ad insert into the wastepaper basket in the old days.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. Not sure I get the connections between software licensing and the examples you provided.
Car Leasing: You agree to pay for the depreciation of the car over the length of time or mileage (usage) for the period of the lease. You agree to be responsible for damage to the vehicle and must purchase insurance to protect against damage that occurs while the vehicle is in your possession but the title to the vehicle remains with the company doing the leasing.
Backhoe rental: again the title to the Backhoe remains with the rental company but you agree to the rental terms that provide a certain amount of income to the owner of the Backhoe. The Backhoe remains on the books of the owning company and they get to take depreciation and wear and tear costs against their income generated by the asset.
As to the Bar: If you can go into the bar and watch the game without purchasing a beer then it is a free charity event, if you must purchase at least one beer to remain and watch the game, then the cost of the beer is the entry cost of the service that is being provided. Beer plus game plus the ambiance of the pub.
Sorry, but I am confused. Not the first time though.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote: Not sure I get the connections between software licensing and the examples you provided.
You said...
"Software is licensed. You do not own it."
|
|
|
|
|
A few decades ago, I would agree with you. But if you, we, us read the fine print, we don't own the s/w any more. It's not a tangible item, but wait, more to follow.
What Oracle is doing is not new. They tried this crap 20 years ago and promptly got deleted from our system. I was in the office when my VP looked at the Oracle rep, looked at me, told me spin up mysql or postgres, up to you, looked back at the oracle rep, told him, you're fired, get the f'k out of the building.
That said, Oracle or any company or YOU are entitled to demand whatever they want. You don't have to buy it. But you are dealing at the corporate level, so Oracle is counting on the fact that the pain of moving from their product is worse than paying their new charges. Broadcomm bought VMWare and it's a cluster fluck.
Oracle is doing nothing wrong. Might piss you off, anger you, but their product is their product. Want to really get upset? Look t the cost of a bottle of Coke. It's $18/gallon. Don't even get me started on "bottled" water.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Vivi Chellappa wrote: What makes software different from common household goods such as TV, automobiles, etc?
Nothing, the rest of those industries just hasn't caught up yet. If you read about about The Great Reset, or whatever it's called, one of the key components is that nobody owns anything -- they rent stuff. 
"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" - World Economic Forum, 2016.[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" - World Economic Forum, 2016.[^]
Much better stated as, "You'll own nothing and like it.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Vivi Chellappa wrote: Once upon a time, when you bought a software, you paid one price for it, no matter how many persons in the purchaser company used it.
I don't agree with that premise, but let's keep going to see where that sort of thinking leads...
Vivi Chellappa wrote: What justifies differential pricing based on number of users?
Scale.
You sell one license for your software to Company A that is going to have 3 of its employees use your software.
Then you sell one license for your software to Company B that is going to have 1000 of its employees use your software.
Company B should pay the same price as Company A? The only thing that's fair in that market is for you (as a software vendor) to have a single opportunity to sell one license (one per company), because every company in the world can get away with purchasing a single license?
Consider also that Company B will use so much more of your support than Company A that it'll completely eat whatever profit you made on the sale, and soon having that company as a customer will cost you money. Unless you charge a fortune for each license, which means you'll never have any opportunity to sell to Company A to start with.
The TV/automobile analogy severely falls apart because when you sell those, you charge for every TV/automobile you sell. The customer has a need for more of his people to use a car? Sell him more cars.
I'm never going to defend Oracle for its licensing practices, but that's because they deviate from the sort of common sense (I hope) I've described above.
|
|
|
|
|
In today's world, one does not buy software, one usually licenses software. When you install said software, you are required to agree with the EULA (probably without bothering to read it). Many times, you agree to abide by said EULA and any changes they decide to make in the future. There has been great gnashing of teeth when recent farmers find out they own the tractor but license the microcode that runs it.
When Larry took over from Sun, I doubt that he had the intentions of losing money on Java. He did not become extremely rich by giving stuff away. Is he greedy for wanting to make lots of money? That is in the eyes of the beholder.
1. Whatever the market will bear.
2. You makes your choices when you sign up.
3. You are greedy if you make a lot of (my) money. I am an entrepreneur if I make a lot of (your) money.
Alas, I didn't make a lot of anybody's money. 
>64
It’s weird being the same age as old people. Live every day like it is your last; one day, it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another example, in MY OPINION, so go ahead and flame me...An example of using the latest and greatest (!) business custom and deliberately or by accident, forgetting the "business 101".
I you have 10 "team members " each using a hammer (to make a product AKA money for you ) , you buy , and PAY, for a dozen hammers.
( cheaper by a dozen (rule)) .
By same token, if your business require software for SAME # of "team" members" etc etc ....
you use your own , (misguided) logic , to say it politically nicely and popular, AND MAKE (10 illegal) copies and call it "good business".
...until one day a kid in the crowd will yell "...the emperor is naked ..."
|
|
|
|
|
Follow up, because I'm about to respond to Jeremy. Companies come up with licensing schemes to make money. ALL companies and I include myself as a small business have to decide how much money they want to make to stay in the market. It has to be worth the effort. And there is nothing wrong with that. The other day, I took my wife out for her retirement dinner. I live north of atlanta, and we have noticed a HUGE price jump in eating anything made in a restaurant. I had a burrito, one beer, she have her enchiladas and a glass of wine. $90. I can honestly say, I cook better than most restaurants, and my wife leaves me in the dust.
What's the point? I made a decision to trade treasure for service. The result? We have more and more restaurants failing because their substandard product is overpriced.
Getting back to Oracle - this is nothing new. Over the past 20 years, the industry has been trying to transition to a service/subscription based business model. It might make sense for corporations, but seriously - consumers? The fact is that companies have a product that they support, but people are happy with the old version. Back in the mid 80s, I worked for Digital Equipment. Their s/w licensing model was based on CPU performance. We kept rolling out faster and faster systems that broke the license model. It got so ridiculous that the sales people would sell a new system and then licenses for $1.
Oracle is playing games, and as developers, we need to be nimble. Any wonder why Oracle bought mySQL?
For example, there is NOTHING Microsoft has added to Office since 2007 that I need. *Nothing*. I am not going to pay an office 365 subscription of any form. Microsoft can do their thing, and I can keep my money. Watch when they try to monitize OS updates.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Vivi Chellappa wrote: Once upon a time, when you bought a software, you paid one price for it, no matter how many persons in the purchaser company used it.
When was that exactly?
Or perhaps you definition of use is limited.
When one bought Lotus 1-2-3 it installed itself in such a way that it could only be installed on one computer.
I would be very surprised if the early payroll systems (big iron) had contracts that allowed one to install it on other computers say at a different company.
By seat licenses are absolutely not new.
Vivi Chellappa wrote: Then they decided to charge according to the power of the processor the purchaser company used.
So? Why is that surprising?
The point of companies is to make money. So they learn new ways to make money they do it. Checking luggage on passenger airlines used to be free. But that doesn't mean that they didn't charge for cargo shipping.
You did learn about steam ships right? Steerage class passengers didn't have a lot of fun.
Vivi Chellappa wrote: Oracle is threatening an audit of those companies to determine if any of the contractual terms are violated by the purchaser.
Eh? Software companies have been suing other companies for licensing violations for decades. I think there is even a company whose sole purpose is doing that.
They would and did take the offending company to court, win a judgement, then conduct an audit. The offending company would then have to buy the number of licenses that they did not have and pay a substantial penalty.
And somewhat related Sun, the original owner of Java, sued Microsoft and won because Microsoft created and distributed a non-compliant Java version for Windows. Microsoft violated the terms of the license.
Vivi Chellappa wrote: If a customer refuses to accept the new terms,
Or the company can use something else. You do know there is an open source version of Java right?
Vivi Chellappa wrote: such as TV, automobiles, etc?
Well for one thing because they are tangible. But do you know how an automobile lease works right? You know the ones with the 'lower' cost?
Or what about companies that rent household furnishings? Including TVs.
Actually I think I saw a place that rents high end wheel covers.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: By seat licenses are absolutely not new.
A long time ago, in the early 1980s, I talked with one guy whose engineering project needed the power of a VAX-780. They needed to write a couple reports, and the natural tool to consider was the VAX 'All-in-1' office automation package. (AI1 was also referred to as 'All-in-several' - the integration of the tools were less than perfect!) AI1 was priced by the capacity of the machine. Their 780 was the most powerful VAX around; DEC claimed it could handle 100 simultaneous AI1 users, and priced the software accordingly. Their project had 3 members, one of them were the to do the major part of the documentation work.
They found a cheaper solution, though: Buying another VAX, a 730, plus a 1-user AI1 license was together significantly cheaper than buying the same software for the 780 they already had.
So you are certainly right: Seat licenses are ages old.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: And somewhat related Sun, the original owner of Java, sued Microsoft and won because Microsoft created and distributed a non-compliant Java version for Windows. Microsoft violated the terms of the license.
That was a good thing! It caused MS to develop C#, and I definitely prefer C# over Java.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
My point is that it's a free market. Don't like the price? Don't buy it. Of course we can get into illegal cornering of markets and price fixing, etc. Did you design a system that wedded you to the evil prince? Fix it. 