#PC BOYCOTT
Most of us involved in this thread are capitalists of one sort or
another, and though my main use of software is CAD rather than
computer animation, I've seen similar occurances with the CAD
software. Autodesk purchased a company that made modeling software
for the mechanical engineering field. The software sold for over 5
grand, and had many sales. Autodesk rewrote it to integrate with
AutoCAD and held the price. Suddenly the package is available as an
integrated add on for AutoCAD and they are calling it AME, and though
there is not as much power in the package, it's selling for a tenth
of the original price….<grin>. Autodesk's move with AME was based
on market projections, I'm sure. By including it in the basic package
they would be selling many more units than would be possible as a
stand alone package. On the other hand, they also anticipated selling
at least 10 times as many units that way too.
We also saw almost the same thing from a competitor of Autodesk's in
the CAD marketplace. They took two CAD programs that retailed in the
three grand range and knocked the pricing down to a hundred and fifty
bucks. According to most of the industry sources, this move wasn't
made to sell 20 times the volume however. It was made as a grab for
market share, and to secure a direct infusion of cash into the
company in order to fund an upgrade to each of the programs.
Why the two examples ??? Only in order to point out that price
reductions result from many and varied decisions on the part of a
company. A price reduction doesn't necessarily mean that the product
is overpriced. It certainly doesn't mean that the purchasers of that
product were gouged if they purchased before the reduction. The only
thing it says is that a particular company is willing to gamble
present and future profits to increase the number of units sold,
increase market share, or to get some instant cash.
I too struggle with the price of software and hardware, maybe even
more than most. You're talking to the entire corporation here….<g>.
But I've had the priviledge (?) of being an employer and an employee
of both large and small companies during my working years. I've also
had the privledge (?) of working for our federal government and
monopolistic utilities at times. The one thing that stands out in my
experience is the different corporate or management mindsets of these
various entities. The smaller the organization, the closer they are
to their employees, and the closer they are to the requirements of
satisfying their customer base. I would guess that this is only
normal, because the smaller your business, the more of an impact on
that business is exerted by each and every employee. But I
digress……have a habit of doing that unfortunately….<g>.
Yes !! There are instances of companies or corporations abusing the
system and gouging their customers. A classic is when CECO here in
Illinois worked out a deal with the utility board to have us pay
twice for their nuclear reactors. Not a bad deal if you owned stock
in the utility. Not such a good deal if you were a user of
electricity. Automobile rebates are another example of this in a
form. If they can afford to give you a rebate of $1500, why not just
lower the cost of the product ??? OTOH, maybe it's just a deal to
increase market share to be able to realize some additional savings
by building additional units. Same reason you can usually purchase a
standard package more cheaply than ordering the same items
individually.
Guess what I'm getting at here is that you can't make rash or brash
statements about why pricing is increased or reduced without having
the luxury of seeing all the numbers, and being privy to all the
discussions and decisions. And all of this has nothing to do with why
the Intel chips still cost in the half grand range, and machines
aren't available for $500…<g>.