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