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