Fw: [Sussex] What the opposition costs

[Steve Dobson]

Hi Guys

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:49:16PM -0000, Mark Harrison wrote:
> From: "Geoff Teale" <gteale at cmedltd.com>
> > On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 16:33 +0000, Mark Harrison wrote:
> > > Not true.
> > >
> > > I sell at least two products with this characteristic... neither of
> > > these is
> > > a monopoly.
> >
> > Fair enough.  I am surprised that companies are prepared to take such a
> > deal.
> 
> So am I, but I'll cash their cheques anyway :-)

I can see that neither of you have worked for companies were Accountants
rule the roost.

The reason, AFAIK, fixed costs are like is because they are that: fixed.
You can plan; you know what you're outgoings are.  I also believe that
it becomes much easier when it comes to posting the end of year results.
To say nothing of shareholders wanting their slice of it.

> > One things for sure - you are certain to get a lot more service for your
> > money from the likes of Red Hat _and_ the upgrades you need  - and if
> > you choose not to you don't have to scrap the technology you can simply
> > get another party to maintain it for you or do it yourself.
> 
> Absolutely true.
> 
> I was not trying to defend MS's position on this in any way. I was only
> agreeing with your generalisation from the specific (MS) to the generic
> (monopoly characteristic.)

Isn't this just another facet of the "Free Market" argument?  Microsoft,
as the market leader with a huge client base, is trying to reducing the
number of ways of buying it's products as a way to manage costs.  Mark's
smaller company is able to be much more accommodating to his clients 
wants and needs.

Steve