| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Toward a long-term SUSE-based distributionToward a long-term SUSE-based distributionPosted Sep 4, 2009 22:18 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Toward a long-term SUSE-based distribution by Baylink Parent article: Toward a long-term SUSE-based distribution
A good analysis. The basic economic ignorance in the discussion and to some extent the article covering it is the common claim that big companies can afford higher prices than small companies. In a free market, no company, no matter how large, can afford to pay $10 for $5 worth of stuff. So SLES is already being sold at its minimum price. To make the case that small businesses need a new SUSE product, you have to show that they need less product than the big guys, not that they need a lower price.
(Log in to post comments)
Toward a long-term SUSE-based distribution Posted Sep 5, 2009 0:34 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
quote:
In a free market, no company, no matter how large, can afford to pay $10 for $5 worth of stuff.
the problem is how do you determine if the stuff is worth $5, $10, or $15?
there is a LOT of equipment out there that I consider horribly overpriced that sells well and lets the companies that sell it make a LOT of money. so obviously to someone else it's not considered overpriced.
Toward a long-term SUSE-based distribution Posted Sep 5, 2009 2:00 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] the problem is how do you determine if the stuff is worth $5, $10, or $15? That's a problem, but I'm talking about the claim that we need a less expensive SUSE because small companies, as opposed to large ones, can't afford SLES. The problem of valuing SUSE would apply equally to large and small companies. Another way of looking at it is that if there really is a way to give 5 years of support for less than $800 a year, big companies will be as interested as small ones. I feel the same way about some enormously expensive computer equipment, not to mention services, but I'm humble enough to admit that I might not understand all the complexities. Companies that spend $50,000 on a router do have skilled people put a lot of time into evaluating it. And if they really can't get more than $5,000 of value out of it, their smarter competitors would drive them out of business.
Toward a long-term SUSE-based distribution Posted Sep 5, 2009 2:39 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
so by your logic, CentOS should not exist as RHEL is already selling for exactly what it's worth.
there is however a difference here
some people want packages that are maintained for a significant time period
some people want a version that a third party will support their software on
other people want a tech support number they can call if they have problems
CentOS or OpenSLES cater to the people who want one or both of the first two, but are willing to do without the last
Toward a long-term SUSE-based distribution Posted Sep 5, 2009 3:15 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] CentOS or OpenSLES cater to the people who want one or both of the first two, but are willing to do without the last Ah, so that's my point. The customers of these vs the customers for the full price versions don't differ in that one can afford to pay more than the other, but that one can use more service than the other. Assuming we're talking about businesses, "willing to do without" means "has less expensive alternatives."
|
|
||||||||||||