Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:51:39 +0100
|
On Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:56:39 -0600 "Laurence A. Bates"
<[log in to unmask]> said:
>I don't see a mention of the nearly $7000 per year that you are charging
>for the Listserv software for NT. Shouldn't that have been a part of
>your message? Personally I feel that I was burned by beta testing your
>product without knowing its cost.
Facts:
1. The price in question was $6,800.00 year 1 and $2,500.00/year
thereafter, not $7,000.00/year.
2. This is the most expensive license that we offer, allowing the
creation of an unlimited amount of lists with an unlimited amount of
subscribers. This is not the license that we normally suggest to NT
customers. It is total overkill for a typical NT shop. It is like a
site license for Novell, you only sell one copy per customer, and then
it's over as far as that account is concerned. You asked for this
license explicitly when requesting your quote.
3. The $500/year license I quoted does exist. It does not allow the
creation of an unlimited amount of lists with an unlimited amount of
subscribers. It does meet the need of most of the people who have been
complaining about losing their list. It is the kind of license that
typical NT customers need.
4. At no time did you ask L-Soft for pricing information during the beta.
You did not have to pay anything to enter the beta. I don't understand
how you can have been "burned" by having tested software for free. If
you really needed to know the price in advance, you were free to ask.
You got a quote for the $6800 license because you explicitly asked for a
totally unlimited license. When you complained about the price, I asked
you to clarify your needs and made a much lower quote ($100/list/year). I
don't see any mention of that in your message? You then went on to say
that the unlimited license is worth $500 to you. I explained that if we
sold the unlimited license at $500, we would be out of business. The
discussion ended here.
I don't have a problem with the fact that you feel the unlimited license
is worth $500 to you. I do have a problem with deliberate misinformation.
Incidentally, you have just violated the beta testing agreement. Your
message is exactly the kind of reason why so many vendors have a strict
beta testing policy with formal non-disclosure agreements. The pricing
for the NT version has not been finalized yet. We are considering
radically different forms of licensing that are more appropriate for the
PC market and we decided to use the VMS price list ad interim for beta
sites that told us they needed the software right now. You received these
prices because you were a member of the beta group. If you had been Joe
Random Customer you would have received a temporary price list with
graduated prices only and an explicit disclaimer. The prices you got are
not public and are not being offered to the general public. As an L-Soft
employee I am free to mention the availability of certain licensing
options or otherwise speak about the software, but until I or one of my
colleagues disclose or publicly offer the particular option you were
offered, you are not free to bring it up. On top of that you have grossly
misrepresented our pricing policy. I am quite familiar with beta
procedures and rules, having participated in quite a number myself back
when my job was to run mainframes. If I had posted a message like yours
following a beta test involving my employer, I would have been fired for
gross misconduct, because the beta agreement was in writing and noone
wants to be sued by IBM. So what is going to happen is that the next time
MSU wants to test any of our products, there will have to be a written
contract with clear penalties for non observance. And if more sites do
the same, we will just require everyone to sign contracts.
Eric
|
|
|