Re: tough choices

Mark A wrote:

>>Exactly my point. Pricing must be based upon equivalent capabilities.
>>Not some simplistic jingoism such as vendor A's EE edition vs. vendor
>>B's EE edition.
>>
>>The only thing that matters is when specific specifications are put on
>>the table and two or more vendors are asked to submit written bids for
>>the business. And that is where mythology must give way to the facts.
>>
>>We are here for technology ... not one of us, as far as I know, gets
>>even a dime in commission no matter who sells the most licenses next
>>quarter. I know I certainly don't so I don't care. Lets not make
>>statements about "more expensive" vs "less expensive" unless we are
>>willing to put both the system specifications and the vendor's written
>>quotes up for comparison. Both vendors are charging as much as they
>>think they can given market conditions. And not one penny less. And
>>if I were a stockholder (which I am not) I would expect nothing less.
>>
>>--
>>Daniel Morgan

> 
> 
> Oh, I think 1,211.00 plus $311.00 per additional user is a lot less
> expensive than Oracle (even after any necessary extender is added on). And a
> lot less expensive than you thought.

If you do then answer this question ... how many "additional users" are there on the World Wide Web?

If you were correct ... I'd think the written quote I have on my desk would reflect it ... sad to say that is not the case. The difference between the two quotes wouldn't buy me a week's worth a dinners at a decent restaurant.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)